Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government? Read More:
“South Dakota Raw Milk Producers vs Big Government State of South Dakota Initiates “Pogrom” Of Economic Genocide Against Small Farm Raw Milk Producers
By Richard Boyden
Small farm raw milk producers are being targeted by the state of South Dakota for criminal prosecution, incarceration, and destruction of their businesses if they do not cease to produce and market raw milk according to the “new rule” proposals being presented for implementation by the Dairy Division of the State of South Dakota. What is shared below is a short overview the oppressive format the state of South Dakota is preparing for small farm raw milk producers.
I decided to write this commentary after the deadline set by the State of South Dakota was past for receiving letters of support for raw milk small farm producers who are being targeted with “rule changes” and “laws” that are formulated to put them out of business. Why? For three reasons.
One. When the “raw milk” hearing was held in Pierre on November 17, there was only a ten day window given to file complaints and 10 days is not enough time for the supporters of raw milk, the small farm producers of, and those who chose to drink raw milk to even begin to get the word out state wide let alone nation wide. Not only that, the timing of the hearing was deliberately set to fall on the Thanksgiving Holiday week so as to make it extremely difficult for support to garnered.
Two. I wanted the rest of America and the world to know exactly what the hidden agenda of the State of South Dakota really is, and what it is proposing to do to raw milk producers and how this will affect those citizens who prefer raw milk over pasteurized.
Three. To expose who is really behind this criminal pogrom and how it affects our constitutional rights as American citizens.
I call this proposed new law targeting raw milk producers a pogrom. If you are familiar with the history of Stalinist Russia, then you will see parallels found in this definition with what the Agricultural Department of the state of South Dakota is proposing to do to small farm producers of raw milk in the name of “health and safety”….” Read More at the BOVINE
So far as I can tell from six years on the net, there are three kinds of patriots.
The un-informed, the in-formed, and the cognitively dissonant, all are patriots, and all are pissing in the wind.
The un-informed; are running on emotion, as a result of a life time exposure to public education, and the media industry, and to their worthy credit, most have tried, or would not hesitate to lay down their lives for America, and this is the hardest group to deal with, due to their fierce love for the Constitution, and their perception of America. Telling them the real history of the birth of America is a good way to lose these friends real fast. Believe me; I don’t want to lose loyal American’s because I am not capable of making them accept the truth. More
I am offering my services as a speaker for the Constitution Party and to spread the word of what is happening to our freedoms. These are the matters that I am running for; to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and the Wisconsin state constitution, from all enemies …Foreign AND Domestic!
I am sending out letters of support to every one I know in the state. We have to let people know what our socialist government is doing and HAS been doing for a long time.
This isn’t the work of just one of the parties but of both of them. It’s all about power and greed. Our so called representatives get that by helping the friends in the BIG-FARM industry. We know where the campaign funds come from.
To quote :
“Raw milk is not inherently dangerous, as DATCP, the FDA and Big Ag would like you to believe. But, as with all foods, it’s how it’s produced that matters. We little guys pasture our animals, feed and treat them organically, and many of us use no grains. The Big Guys can’t do that. They confine their animals, pump them full of hormones and antibiotics, and feed them garbage – literally, like bakery waste and distillers grains (the stuff left over after producing alcohol or ethanol). That milk IS dangerous. Our isn’t. But as you can guess, it’s about control and monopolization.”
I consider this to be the real problem in our health care today; processed foods devoid of nutrition and filled with toxins resulting from industrialized corporate farming.
I am also mobilizing support for Pat and Melissa Monchilovich of Cumberland, WI. This too is wrong and is in direct violation of the state of Wisconsin Constitution, guaranteeing allodial property rights i.e., [absolute ownership. Not bound to render service to any other body or person.]
Premises ID is a contract conveying a change of title of ownership to the USDA acting as agent for the federal government. It is a contractual surrendering and abandonment of private property and the allodial property rights of the sovereign individual. A report on their case is found here.
I am putting up on my website a petition that people can fill out, so we
can present it in Max’s and the Monchilovichs’ cases. Please look for it
Below is a letter received from Senator Kohl of Wisconsin to queries about the unconstitutional provisions of HR 2749 and the infringements on the rights of the people. Senator Kohls letter follows this response from Paul Griepentrog. Please note how Senator Kohl proudly proclaims all the federal funding that will be supplied to the FDA to prosecute, persecute and drive private property owners off the land for corporate interests.
It must suck to be a family farmer or herder in Wisconsin! With guys like Kohl…..Monsanto looks….almost marginal. Marti
Dear Senator Kohl.
Your response to my concerns of the onerous regulation that will be implemented in the present food safety bills, clearly shows your lack of concerns of the impact of this legislation on small and medium producers. It also indicates your indifference to the proposed food safety legislation as far as its inconsistencies with existing federal code and the enumerated powers of the US Constitution which was the concern I contacted you to address.
Your intent indicates that you operate under the illusion that these bills will have any effect other than to advantage the corporate agenda by displacing direct market producers.
Your indifference to the actual implications of these proposed programs is appalling.
Therefore after 30 years of direct market production we have decided to discontinue fruit and vegetable production. The revenue lost will not be available to aid the local economy.
Thank you for thinking so little of us. Senator Feingold never replied, as you both sit the Senate Judiciary committee, can we expect further complacency of this nature?
Paul M. Griepentrog
Carol A. Griepentrog
Shady Knoll Farms
Park Falls, Wisconsin
715-762-1875
Mr. Paul Griepentrog
W2402 Shady Knoll Road Park Falls, Wisconsin 54552
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Quincy Adams
Who among us can stand against democracy? Isn’t it the most ideal form of government? What better way is there to decide issues? If a majority of the people want things to be a certain way, isn’t it right and proper that their preferences prevail especially when it affects their lives and how they live? Surely the smaller number of people should not be allowed to dictate to the larger. While all of this makes sense and is subscribed to by a majority of Americans, the simple truth of the matter is that such thinking, at best, is naïve and as stated by John Quincy Adams, a recipe for disaster.
Even a cursory analysis of the above kind of thinking reveals its inherent flaws. For example, if the majority believe that it is okay to own slaves, should an issue of this nature be decided by a poplar vote? Obviously no! If the measure carried it would violate an individuals God given right to live free.
Clearly, it is wrong for the majority to possess the means to infringe upon and take away the rights of others even when they believe it is in their best interest. More
For the past several years I have been referred to as a pessimist, a doom-and-gloomer, even unkind and trying to scare people. There are a few individuals in this nation who have read the warning signs and are better informed spokespersons than the general public, but many citizens are beginning to take notice and listening to what these realistic thinkers are saying. I certainly don’t claim to be a prophet or have any insight into the future. All I can do is study the facts, recall the past and try to determine what to expect in the future. For the past 30 years I have been studying economic history and what I have learned is totally different from what I was taught in the economics courses I took in 1949 and 1950 at the University of Missouri.
During 1982-83 I wrote an article each month for a rural electric publication. The following are the titles of a few of my manuscripts: THE QUESTION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY – WE NEED FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE – WE CAN’T BUY FRIENDS – IT TAKES WORK TO CURE A RECESSION – A WORLD WITHOUT BUREAUCRATS – APATHY WEAKENS A NATION – FOREIGN LOANS PINCH BIG BANKS – DON’T TAKE FREEDOM FOR GRANTED. Nearly everything I wrote in 1982-83 came to pass, yet I was told by the editorial staff in 1983 that my articles were too controversial and my services were no longer needed. They thought I was pessimistic when I was trying to be realistic. More
A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session. More
You might want to look into the anti-trust lawsuit filed in October of this year on behalf of dairy farmers in the northeast facing the same situations you are: and Wisconsin is mentioned in this suit. Its not all that needs to be done, but it is a starting point and one I am sure no one told you about no matter how many times you hit the “donate” button.
__________________________________
In response to the alert listed below, sent to the Vice President of WICFA, a request was made to gather all the support we could for Wisconsin dairy farmers who have been relentlessly harassed by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and their constantly changing regulations that have no other intent than to disrupt the dairy farming industry in order to force compliance to unconstitutional and unlawful regulations. Citizens Committee link.
The PPJ Alliance took this seriously and we answered this call for support. At the eleventh hour, this same organization sending this Action Alert out, and a national foundation along with a few locals…….pulled the rug out from under the dairy farmers and called off any public protest of DATCP and their police state policies.
I suspect there is far more to this than the dairy men are aware of. No media, no news coverage, no public attention to what is happening? And in fact, you were all told NOT to show up at a public meeting?
It seems to me there is a possibility that something was in the works you dairy folk aren’t supposed to know about…….and now that we here at the PPJ acted on your behalf……it appears some are suggesting we be the targeted scapegoat for what could be a process still in negotiations……just waiting for the right time to drop the gavel.
That’s just my opinion of course. Time will tell. For those who might believe they will use us to explain their failure to yield positive results…….we’re waiting.
Marti Oakley
UPDATE: It is being suggested by people who were not in attendance at the Madison meeting that those who were there raged, stomped their feet and acted irrationally.
Those who were in attendance reported that the meeting was civil and well received…….there was no bad behavior exhibited by anyone on either side. More
We send our thanks and gratitude to national radio host Derry Brownfield who pre-empted his daily show to allow us to help get the word out that Wisconsin dairy farmers needed support at the November 11, 2009, Madison Wisconsin meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee for DATCP.
The idea that Derry was willing at a moments notice to lend his airtime and his support to Wisconsin’s battle is commendable to say the least.
Thank you also, to all of Derry’s listeners who headed for Wisconsin to stand with the Wisconsin dairymen in this battle to preserve their rights and their property.
Join “The Ruthie Report” and our special guests every Thursday at 8 pm Central time. Listen to Ruthie’s commentary on the issue of illegal immigration, with week to week news updates, action alerts and activities on what we can do to stop the illegal immigration invasion. Check your political correctness at the door.
This weeks Guest will be: Frosty Wooldridge More
I once wanted to live in Wisconsin and be a dairy farmer there. Now I see it is the only worse thing I could have done than remain in Minnesota and be a small family dairy farmer here.
I see you have mentioned Organic Valley. I used to sell milk there, until they wiped me out.
They started out by sending a big truck with illegal tires to pick up milk in winter, and when the truck, with those bald tires, had difficulty in my yard, they blamed me. I put up with the abuse because the ‘organic premium’ for milk was so necessary for our survival as a farm. Then they went with semi-trucks which do not fit in a small farmyard.
Everything always had to be clear, no room for anything but the big semi and its precious (to them) oversized payload. Talk about a major hassle! Even a 1″ snowfall bogged them down and of course, who did they (Organic Valley) blame? They blamed me. More
America’s enemies are winning the war against freedom from tyrannical governance, and it is now time to consolidate our army of Informers.
Make no mistake about it, there is no other option other than informing the masses about HOW America will become just another statistic in the long list of defeated Nations; and unless we can offer up information that can and does prove who did this to us, we will shortly become a satellite to a world government. Our only hope is by using the same techniques our enemy has used over and over to gain their objective. Namely, infuriate the masses with fear and outrage, against a particular target. This is a last call to arms people, so read carefully, and with the attitude of discovering how we can preserve our country’s sovereignty. More
October 29, 2009 “New American“ — The National Security Agency is building huge new storage facilities to store the unconstitutionally gained data on the American people’s telephone calls and Internet traffic permanently, including new buildings in suburban Salt Lake City, Utah, and San Antonio, Texas.
NATIONWIDE TALK SHOW“The Ruthie Report” live and/or archived athttp://www.BlogTalkRadio.com/TheRuthieReport8 pm CST every Thursday or http://www.ConservativeAlliance.org Join “The Ruthie Report” and our special guests every Thursday at 8 pm Central time. Listen to Ruthie’s commentary on the issue of illegal immigration, with week to week news updates, action alerts and activities on what we can do to stop the illegal immigration invasion. Check your political correctness at the door.
This weeks Guest will be: Chelene Nightingale www.NightingaleForGovernor.com
chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com More
By Michael Webster Syndicated Investigative Reporter: April 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM PST-Revised Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 Pm PDT
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize three expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. While the bill they passed allegedly strengthened civil liberties in reality, the Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that violate citizen’s basic rights. Strangely, the Obama Administration played a significant behind the scene role in opposing stronger civil liberties protections, directly contradicting Obama’s positions as a Senator. More
What begins with the trappings of good will, respect and even love, can often disintegrate into petty differences, resentment and rising anger. What starts out as mutual common ground in the building of a family, or the foundation for a country, can unravel if the common ground or the foundation is disturbed, distorted, or loses its meaning and significance. When the spirit of love, or the spirit of freedom, that binds two people or a nation together, is fractured by forces that tear it asunder, marriages and nations begin to crumble. And so it is, as the divide between Americans grows wider, as the principles of our freedom are eroded by the actions of those who seek more power over the masses and those who seek to live off the sweat of others, America is beginning to come apart at the seams, as the resentment towards opposing views becomes even more acrimonious.
Resentment turns to heated discussions. Discussions turn to arguments and arguments turn to shouting and shouting can lead to violence. This is the path that many a man and woman take as their union, once blessed by God, is shattered by their differences over culture, money, religion, politics, abnormal behavior, cheating, abandonment and sex. This is the path our nation is taking, as cracks open wider in the foundation of our liberty.
Sometimes, marriages can be saved with counseling, but that only occurs when there exists the utmost good faith of the parties who seek reconciliation. If there is no good faith, the union dies. And thus, the union of states, our cherished America, is about to die, if good faith is absent and if there is no attempt to return it to the principles of freedom, upon which it was founded.
We have descended into a nation immersed in an arena of squabbles, some petty, some major. We squabble over who gets their piece of the Treasury first and how much. We fight like Hell to maintain “our share” and fight even harder to get more. We squabble over going to war, even though foreign enemies camp outside our doors and send spies into our midst to kill us and severely damage our infrastructure and our economy, as happened on 9/11. It will happen again, make no mistake.
For almost 100 years, we have let our government manipulate us while we looked the other way. We have bought into the propaganda, hype, distortion and lies about the degree of compassion we owe to those less fortunate, with the degree decided by government, or the fraud that is man-caused global warming. Way too many of us can’t wait to get “our share” of Nationalized Health Care that our government is going to shove down our throats, in spite of massive opposition and in spite of absolutely no constitutional governing authority to do so. In allowing government to “buy” us off for a few pieces of silver, the chains that come with those few pieces, subject us to self-inflicted slavery. More
They knew even back as far as 1992 and in many cases even years earlier what the Federal Reserve was doing to destroy our Country. And yet they allow this to continue……………………………..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES (House of Representatives – May 04, 1992)
[Page: H2889]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue on the subject matters that I have been discussing for some years, but with particular relevancy on two major concerns as a Member and also now as the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. This could be said to be about thievery in high places, national and international.
Before I go into that I want to sum up, for the sake of understanding and clarity, the limitations as well as the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. I also happen to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development.
The average citizen, and I would almost hazard to say the average Member of Congress, and not members of these committees in either the House or the Senate, would conclude that the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs has jurisdiction on matters that would seem obvious and commonsense to have jurisdiction, but we do not. As a matter of fact, there are areas of activity that I think the average citizen who reads his Constitution would absolutely conclude that the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House had jurisdiction, but it does not. Such things, for instance, as the constitutional mandate–not a privilege, it is a mandate–that the Congress control the purse, Treasury; that it also set and determine the value of its coinage or currency, as we say nowadays.
However, that is not really so, through a variety of things that I have discussed on prior occasions and only will sum up; for example, in the matter of affixing the value of the money and coins thereof, that was long abdicated by the Congress after the passage of the Federal Reserve Board Act of 1913 and the creation within the activities of that board of such a thing as the Open Market Committee. More
It seems Massachusetts is the epicenter for the coup taking place by the federal government. As one of the most compliant and facilitating state governments, it appears there is no Constitutional right or liberty; no abridgement of the Constitution this state’s legislature will not enforce to enlarge the powers of the federal government over the sovereign states. As if the Premises ID and NAIS assaults on private property ownership; the use of the state agricultural department to terrorize and harrass ranchers and farmers as they did in the Greg Niewendorp case, and have done to others……now they come before the entire country announcing the most invasive police state action under the guise of public health…….and are darn proud of it.
Original PPJG Article : September 14, 2009 : 1:05 p.m. CST
Marti Oakley (c) 2009
In a recent article, I reported the underlying themes and problems with the healthcare reform proposal. Basically, that it had nothing to do with reform other than establishing a backdoor REAL ID. Otherwise, the entire proposal is nothing more than a directive on how you can access care, what care you can access and if and how you would qualify and who is going to get crowned the “czar”.
Also included in this legislative slight of hand is the “public option”. Sounds good doesn’t it? And you can keep your private insurance if you want to. Well, of course you can!
Here’s the deal. If your employer decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance to his employee’s, he will have to pay a fine (tax) which as it turns out will be only a fraction of what it is costing him to offer you that insurance. What do you think he will do? How long do you think it will take your employer to realize he could make a lot more profit if he dropped your health coverage?
Where does this leave you? Looking for that “public option”, I would think. Both public and private insurance will be managed by the same insurance companies whose former employees reported to the senate committee hearing that they were paid to deny legitimate claims; to avoid paying claims and were paid bonuses to do so. But the governments remedy is to put them in charge of these two options. More
Consider this a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all members of the Senate, all members of the House, and to President Obama. I am sure you are fully aware of the intent and implications of MOUs, as each of you, in one way or another, uses them to establish the outlining of agreements between yourselves, collectively or individually, concerning the agreements you have made with individuals acting as state’s representatives or agencies; generally to avoid Constitutional prohibitions on your intended actions and in avoidance of the Constitution. I am using it in quite another fashion as you will see in the following text.
For you, MOUs are the terms and agreements of what, are in fact the first step in contractual agreements. MOUs are most often accompanied by cooperative agreements and funding (bribes) to implement what generally turns out to be egregious assaults to civil rights and liberties to the benefit of the federal government, linked so inextricably to corporate interests and global agreements.
Consider what follows a Memorandum of Understanding between me, Marti J. Oakley, and all of you, collectively cited in the above paragraph.
To Wit:
We (you and I) agree that each and every one of you holds your office as a result of election. And, that as a result of your victory and subsequent oath of office, you were expected to actually represent the people who put their faith and trust in you. The fact is you have violated this oath at every opportunity regardless of which party you claim allegiance to or which political philosophy you espouse at any given time.
In light of a profound understanding of how you have used and abused this trust and faith, I need you to understand how I (we) perceive you, i.e., your activities, your betrayals of these United States of America, your pandering to corporate interests, your illegal agreements with foreign governments and interests and ultimately what appears to be a very concerted effort to destroy our country and to convert the same into a region in some coveted global plantation.
Consider this a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all members of the Senate, all members of the House, and to President Obama.
Because the instances of your acts against the people are so numerous, in this MOU, I will address only this one issue: National Security
Please consider this Memorandum of Understanding No. 2
Please be advised that no cooperative agreement with the anticipated funding (bribe money) will be forthcoming. You may consider this an “Unfunded Mandate” in the sense that I will never contribute one dime to the re-election efforts of any one of you. “We” in the following text means “WE THE PEOPLE.”
I (We) understand:
The term “national security” was simply the enabling and justifying of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which had been long planned and prepared prior to the attacks on 9/11 and has little to no affect on terrorist activities by foreign agents and was never intended as the primary function of this agency. When referring to DHS in this memorandum, it is to be considered inclusive of all the agencies now held and operating under the direction and control of DHS:
I (WE) understand:
We agree (you and I) that “National Security” has a different meaning and intent with regards to the corporation operating as the UNITED STATES, a.k.a., THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”, than the meaning and intent as understood by the people of the (50) sovereign states, known as the [united states of America], independent of the Corporation and that with an understanding of this difference in intent and meaning comes the true meaning of “national security” as expressed by the Corporation operating as the federal government. That if any true and real intent was existing from foreign interests: More
Posted By Beat The Chip to Beat The Chip at 8/30/2009 05:01:00 PM
BTC Editorial –
Obama disappoints. He disappoints because he’s been assimilated into the machine of Bush’s predecessors. He disappoints because he behaves as Bush did. Make no mistake – there is simply no possible way for a President to pristinely carry the adulation of the American public at all times. Which means that leaders have to have a fallback plan after the Honeymoon is over. However, so many elected him on the auspices that we wouldn’t get the Bush treatment.
Obama still has a chance to come correct. He can change direction any time he chooses. The issue for actors on the world stage is always MOTIVATION. Where does the context for these decisions come from? More
Letter Written by: Mel Mason Date of Letter: 2009-08-01 Subject: GovernmentIn the absence of any ability on the part of the congress people or the administration to understand that they are restrained by natural law as defined in the Constitution, and seeing as they are much more motivated to serve their masters than to serve the people, I feel we need to stop arguing with them, stop educating them on how to do their job and explaining to them that the law does not permit them to make decisions infringing on our liberties, that our bodies are our own, that our pursuit of happiness outweighs their greed for power, and they have no authority to violate our constitutional rights by imposing compulsory vaccinations, among many other things, and we stand in million part harmony , a single voice, a simple message, clear, concise and unmistakable, WE WILL NOT COMPLY!
Congratulations! You are now officially a “domestic terrorist” and considered to be the greatest threat to the government. You are the newly defined terrorist the government fears most. Please refer to the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which allows the president to declare you a “domestic terrorist” if you disagree with government policy or participate in dissenting views……which you have done if you accessed this article.
When our government speaks of terrorists, I bet you think they are talking about someone “over there”. NOT! They aren’t concerned with foreign terrorists, after all they perform a very necessary function. More
A decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early. As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed …yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works. More
Whenever some unelected bureaucracy is attempting to circumvent state or federal constitutional protections and rights, it is always done using some form of [co-operative agreement]. What this amounts to is a bribe paid to state officials. Usually these agencies, answerable to no one….(they all have rule-making (law-making) capabilities) are intending to pass laws which will violate civil liberties. The money, usually in the millions, is used to coerce elected officials at the state level into passing what would otherwise be untenable. More
I have seen a rise in the number of elected officials, especially those in Congress, who seem to think only those in their district should be contacting them. With feigned politeness many have been informed that due to “professional courtesy” Her Royal Hiney Representative So & So, or his Imperial Majesty Senator I’m So Damned Important, cannot possibly respond to your email, fax or phone call because youdo not reside in their district. It wouldn’t be proper. Not polite. It’s not done. What would their distinguished friend across the isle think if they knew the representative or senator was speaking to someone in their district.
Well I got news for all you boys and girls out there in the District of Criminals…….when you cast that vote on those bills you didn’t even bother to read, claim you don’t know what’s in them and you can’t possibly be held responsible…….that vote affects ME. As long as it does, you will speak to me, correspond with me and give me your full and undivided attention. After all, you just voted in my name without even discussing the issue with me before hand. The least you can do is talk to me after the fact. In the instances when you did bother to acknowledge the opposition to what you were voting to implement, you still voted against our best interests, and quite frankly it would seem, in your own.
When you royal asses write bills that are arbitrary to the Constitution and my rights, I have a right to demand an explanation from you and I don’t give a flip what district you are in.
When you are plotting and planning the overtaking of the agricultural system in our country so that you can hand it over to your parasitic corporate buddies and subject the country to illegal agreements that will destroy us all, you can bet you are going to hear from me.
When you continue to bail out one corrupt bank or insurance company after another and not one of these crooks, liars and thieves has to forfeit one thing while me and millions of ordinary people lose our jobs, homes and any future we may have had, you can bet a note from me will be on its way.
I understand some of you are now referring to any communications from anyone who doesn’t support your un-American activities as “harassment”. Really? So now its harassment to have to accept correspondence from people whose lives you have dicked up, or are about to? Are you really thinking you are that special?
Just so I know that I have this all right, lets review!
You don’t have time to read the bills. (Part of your job)
You vote on bills you admit you know nothing about. (dereliction of duty)
You write or vote to pass bills that are unconstitutional. (treason?)
You entertain lobbyists and accept gifts. (bribery?)
You vote against your constituents and your country, violate your oaths of office
Bail out your wealthy corrupt friends and business associates with our money
And then tell us we are harassing you if we contact you about your failure to act to protect the public and the Constitution you swore to uphold?
Have I got all of this right? Did I forget the part about where some of you royal jokesters are now claiming that these communications represent a threat? And what would that threat be? Since when does a citizen communicating with a government official about government actions constitute a threat?
Of course, what with the fake food safety bills, NAIS, the internet kill switch, Smart grid, and various and sundry other laws that were previously passed that assaulted not only our rights, but also our right to be left alone by government, I could see where you might feel a little shaky, maybe even a little paranoid. Get over it. We’re out here. We’re watching, listening and in many cases doing your job for you. We’re not going away.
“The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
In other words if the Attorney General suspects that you are a terrorist then he can deny you the right to buy a gun. There is no trial and no due process of law. So not only does this bill violate the second amendment, it also violates the fifth and sixth amendments.
The author of this bill and the cosponsors all took an oath to support the constitution. And yet here they are happily proposing to violate it left and right. In my opinion that should be ample reason for removing them from office.
But there are other troubling aspects to this bill. If second amendment rights can be removed in this manner what about other rights. Could your first amendment right of free speech be revoked because you might be using it to conspire with others to commit acts of terrorism? Could your fourth amendment right to privacy be taken because you might have something dangerous on your person or your property?
This bill stinks to high heaven. All Americans should contact their representatives and tell them this bill must not pass.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.” (emphasis added) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Representative DeLauro:
I live in the United States. Not the Washington D.C. Corporate zone, but in the sovereign state of Minnesota in the sovereign United States. You may be unfamiliar with that and the subsequent documents that establish not only my personal rights, but which also limit the reach of government, but then again, maybe not. Its apparent you live in some other part of the world where individual liberties and rights are not a consideration; a place where police state conditions are not only accepted but, encouraged.
I just read the bill you authored H.R. 875 and am left wondering just who it is you work for and where it is you live?
Having printed off and actually reading your bill, I see that there are massive and extremely punitive punishments and fines for non-specific violators most of which would be leveled against small and independent producers, family farms and non-corporate operations. In other words, you did not site specifically just who would be subject to these police state actions, nor did you specify who would possibly be exempt….like maybe small independent and family farmers and herders who aren’t the cause of the known food borne illnesses.
I also noted that exemptions are provided for foreign importers such as China; a known source of contaminated foods, medicines and other products. For the life of me I can not figure out why you would provide an exemption for countries that have consistently shown their disregard for the US consumer.
I couldn’t help note that in Sec. 406 you state:
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
This section says a whole lot in a very few words. Any actions, enforcement, requirements, with regards to an assumed (not presumed) connection to food safety laws; in other words you can just assume interstate commerce is involved and claim jurisdiction. That kind of blows away the “this isn’t going to affect farmers markets, home gardens, etc., doesn’t it? It seems to me if [interstate commerce] is going to be assumed to exist in any attempts to enforce this new food policing law, anyone who produces, buys, or otherwise touches food from any source is by your definition and planned targeting, already engaged in [interstate commerce] and by extension and without any evidence needed, guilty.
Question: Would this apply to Monsanto?
Your bill goes on to say that there will be no judicial review allowed, even to determine the validity of the charges that may be levied against an individual.
See, that’s where the difference in where you live and where I live comes in. Where I live the Constitution says that I have a right to due process and to habeas corpus. I’m sure you’re confused here. This simply means that I have a right to know who accuses me and the accuser must produce the evidence, and that no warrants shall issue unless the person requesting the warrant can show probable or reasonable cause. So your “no judicial review even to establish the validity of the charges” won’t fly here where I live. We don’t do things that way.
Also (and this will surely come as a shock to you) your bill establishes an Administrator with dictatorial powers and creates another unmanageable and corruptible bureaucracy in an already bloated federal system. We already have two very dysfunctional agencies that are supposed to be guarding the public health and safety in the areas of food safety and also drug safety. These two agencies, the USDA and FDA have been so corrupted by corporate influence and money, neither serves the public interest or trust and have not for many years. Yet along with corporate influence, taxpayers are forced to contribute to both. Where the heck is all that money going?
I am assuming you are not aware of the fact that simply because an oppressive bill of this kind could be submitted to our Congress, it does not necessarily mean it is legal or constitutionally permitted. (I can’t imagine what kind of crap you get away with where you live). Here in the US, a Supreme Court Justice rendered her opinion on this very matter. You might find this interesting and possibly something you should be cautious of should your country of residence ever adopt a Constitution.
Do you agree with the findings of the U.S. Supreme court in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?
(Page 133) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
“Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated. where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon Branch approves the encroachment….
The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.” (emphasis added)
What this should convey to you Ms. DeLauro, is that here in the US the congress cannot simply take it upon itself to foist illegal, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws onto the various States that comprise the sovereign United States. It also means that state governments cannot arbitrarily subject the state or its people to an expansion of federal government outside the provisions set out in the Constitution by agreeing to that expansion.
I know you must think your new [food safety] bill would effectively end any states rights and finally establish a centralized, industrialized agricultural system which would benefit all those corporations you seem to be so fond of, but we can’t let that happen here. We’ve seen the affects of industrialized corporate agriculture in poorer nations where millions have been made destitute and left starving as a result. Thanks, but no thanks.
If you ever tire of the police state you live in and decide its not all you envisioned; if you yearn for freedom…..please feel free to immigrate to the US. We have a very liberal immigration policy. In fact, you can even avoid all the pesky red tape that results from applying for immigration and just run our southern border. Its wide open and millions have successfully crossed it without penalty.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let’s look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated “front” for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
AUSTIN – The 5-11 Campaign, a grassroots privacy organization opposed to the federal ID, declared 30 days of vigilance over identity legislation with connections to Information Analysis Centers (IAC), or what is now commonly known as Fusion Centers.
“Based on reports that fusion centers are targeting 3rd party voters and those who pose Constitutional challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence gathering efforts we are aggressively opposing any legislation that would secure our private information for national to international data aggregation. This may include voter ID. No one should be profiled or targeted based on an electronic record of how they voted. A routine intelligence seizure based on a national security directive, such as the one issued in Missouri, would lead to arbitrary and reckless disregard for our privacy and personal sovereignty,” says Sheila Dean, President of the 5-11 Campaign.
This legislation observed for action during the vigil includes opposition to HB 4036. The Texas bill calls for compliance with the federal ID mandate. American license information, social security number and citizenship documents may be stored and shared with customs through an insecure fusion center. Other legislations included during the month long vigil touch upon DNA databases, animal information systems, drivers licenses, identity cards and other relevant attributions of private identity.
Last Monday (3/30), the Public Safety Committee heard testimony which included challenges to existing efforts to gain public consent over fusion center storage of license or ID card information. Many objections were raised over the call for facial recognition technology, among other regulations in the Real ID Act of 2005. Texas’ federal Real ID extension for compliance expires December 31, 2009.
Public Safety committee members are concerned about Texans being refused passage into federal buildings and airports based on Texas federal extension status. According to staffers, the DHS has been unclear about the extension standards until now with one exception; the inclusion of citizenship status on licenses.
“When an license to operate a motor vehicle becomes a de facto citizenship document, it becomes a national ID card. We are opposed to a national ID. We hope the 81st legislature will stand on the 10th Amendement and reject the whole Act,” said Dean.
Incomplete Networks & Intelligence Aggregation
The push to expand identity databases nationally are suffering from a big brother reputation, networking inadequacies and insufficient funds.
According to a report released last month from the DHS Inspector General, fusion centers across the U.S. are inadequately networked, non-existent or vastly underfunded to comply with the federal mandate for identity storage and national identity sharing.
“DHS did not provide timely and specific guidance on how REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses and identification cards must be marked, best practices for the physical security of facilities, or information on the systems that will be used for verifying applicant documentation. To achieve full compliance with REAL ID standards by 2011, states must connect with electronic verification systems to verify identification documents. Several of the systems needed do not yet exist. Specifically, 18 of 19 states, or 95%, reported that available grant funding was insufficient. Several states referred to the amount received as a “drop in the bucket.” – DHS INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
Click on READ MORE to see Allison Bricker’s list of what qualifies any one of us to be listed as a ‘terrorist”. Guess what…..if you are reading anything that opposes government policy or support the Constitution…..you’re already on there. Thank the fine folks at your area Fusion Center for adding you to these lists. Marti
This past week, sensitive documents from the Missouri Information Analysis Center were leaked to the public. The M.I.A.C. report designated “UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE”, seeks to put supporters of Dr. Ron Paul, those tired of the endless banker bailouts, and just about anyone else who dare question the Federal government on par with Neo-Nazis and abortion clinic bombers.1
It disturbs me greatly to bear witness as our Federal government continues to expand its program of correlating dissent with domestic terrorism. Fellow readers, this despicable tactic is precisely why many of our Founding Fathers sought to engross humanity’s inherent liberties into the Constitution via The Bill of Rights. Among these rights derived solely from nature, is the right to free speech; even speech deemed unpopular or critical of one’s government.
Truth be told, the tactic of linking those criticizing the central authority as outright enemies of the state, whether it be king or government is as old as humanity itself. This is how students of the enlightenment, ergo Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al knew the absolute necessity of prohibiting government regulation of speech. The Founding generation witnessed first hand “Royal Governors” and legislatures executing and imprisoning their fellow colonists for speaking out against the crown.2 These unjust decrees backed by the weight of the sword, were necessary in the eyes of the loyalist governments. They feared dissent would gradually give rise to critical thinking, which in turn would demand answers and accountability, and thus dissent was seen as a direct threat to their ever corrupting grip on power. READ MORE
In The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered, I posited that our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was wholly adequate and superior to the Federalist Constitution that replaced it and that, had we kept the Articles of Confederation, we could have avoided the tyrannical government we have today entirely.
A reader of one of my articles on the Second Amendment had suggested that I read a rather obscure book titled, Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce (AKA Boston T. Party) and he used the term (coined by Royce), parchment worship while mentioning this book to me. Well, I had already been vaguely aware that there was some sort of intrigue going on back in 1787 when the Constitution was written to supplant the allegedly inadequate Articles of Confederation, and I had heard it had something to do with some sort of scurrilous moves by the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, who were either infiltrated by Freemasons or were Freemasons, themselves (actually, as it turns out, so were some of the Anti-Federalists). But, that was all I could recall about it, having heard about this, initially, some thirty years ago.
Well, my thanks go out to that reader for reawakening me to this and I have now looked into the book he suggested, though I haven’t yet got a copy of it for myself. I did, however, visit the Javelin Press website, where there is a pretty fair amount of information about the book, including the following, which I have excerpted:
“Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?
“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)
Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer under a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from alfalfa to xylophones. This is Freedom? So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!”
“…the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d’etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780’s, the “virus” of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it’s all constitutional!” Oh, it’s only ‘constitutional’ because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!,” some would reply.”
“Yes, but the Framers allowed the Supreme Court, without any check or balance, to approve of federal encroachment on the States and on the people. There is no constitutional avenue for overturning a despotic Supreme Court ruling – and it was designed that way. The feds are allowed to “monitor” themselves, like students grading their own tests. Had the Framers wanted to really check the Supreme Court, they’d have at least created an appellate court (activated by petition) staffed by justices from the States. Had the Framers wanted to really hamstring Congress and the President, they would have given the people a “no-confidence” device to remove traitorous officials in midterm. Had they wanted to, the Framers could have (as did the Swiss) easily confined the Federal Government – but they didn’t want to. In their opinion, a strong central government – independent of real popular approval – was best for America. The Framers left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have such an unchallengeable government today.
Most conservatives and libertarians believe that the Constitution and its Framers were Jeffersonian and laissez-faire. They were not, and they never claimed to be. This Jeffersonian gloss is echoic of two things: 1) What the Constitution was sold as to the people through The Federalist, and 2) How the Constitution, according to Jefferson, should have been interpreted under strict constructionism. Add the Red, White, and Blue, July 4th, the Founding Fathers and George Washington and you’ve got a civic religion with its unique parchment worship. There are but three ways to view anything, including the Constitution:
The way you see it.
The way you would like it to be.
The way it really is.
Friends of freedom have gazed dreamily at the Constitution for two centuries, fusing #1 with #2 to create a false #3. We need to snap out of our parchment worship and coldly study the predicament of Liberty–before it’s too late. Liberty-loving folks need to quickly understand that freedom is not well-served by the current Constitution. Neither is tyranny. It is Royce’s firm opinion that the Constitution will be radically amended, if not abolished altogether, by “us” or “them” within 10 years. Royce proves that the States and the people were politically “checkmated” at ratification, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior the imminent insurrection now brewing. The goal of Hologram of Liberty is to spark an active synthesis of Libertarians, Patriots, and Conservatives to prevent a 21st century Dark Age in America.”
I, for one, will be reading this book and I urge that everyone do so. It is high time that we Americans learned the truth about our Constitution and why it hasn’t prevented a fascistic regime from emerging in America.
Having said that, it becomes even more apparent that I was onto something in suggesting the original Articles of Confederation should have been retained and that we’d all be a lot better off if it had been, in the first place. The thing is, I had no idea how right I was in saying so until I began looking into it further!
It is my firm belief, having looked into this, that, not only could the present state of affairs have been avoided had the Articles of Confederation never been scrapped, but that we need, desperately, to scrap our current fascistic regime and its constitutional underpinnings and start all over again where we left off – with the Articles of Confederation.
In contemplating the recent move toward the states declaring their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, I’ve been doing some reading of the Articles of Confederation and, in particular, how they compare with the Federalist Constitution we wound up with and, with the benefit of some hindsight about the two and, in light of where we have wound up today, I have to say there are some things about the Articles of Confederation that are not only preferable to our Constitution, but which may very well have avoided the situation we now find ourselves in.
One of the main criticisms of the Articles of Confederation has always been that the United States and each of the several states was empowered to coin their own money, thus leading to a situation in which each had its own currency. The objection to this was that it was allegedly an unwieldy system in which disputes often arose between states over the relative exchange rate between the competing currencies.
However, I find this to be the main strength of the Articles, in that, it would have made the silent coup by the international banking cartel impossible. It was the Constitution’s provision for a single currency that made us vulnerable to the criminal overthrow of our nation in 1913 – which was the ultimately successful final attempt at such a coup, after several previous attempts by the moneychangers to establish a central bank. A central bank would be impossible to establish under the Articles of Confederation, as there was no centralized economy under the Articles. This is a significant strength and the main reason the Articles were actually superior to the vision of the Federalists. In fact, there is evidence to support the contention that the Federalists were agents of the British Rothschilds and that they were deliberately steering the United States toward a centralized government for exactly the purpose of paving the way for a central bank.
Aside from this key difference, there are some other features of the Articles that would have helped to prevent the current police state from ever forming. Among these was the fact that, under the Articles, there was no President. There was only a unicameral Congress. Admittedly, the bicameral Congress we’ve had since 1788 provides more checks and balances than a unicameral Congress did, however, without a chief executive, this is a minor point, as there was no opportunity for a dictatorial leader to emerge under the Articles of Confederation.
Another feature of the Articles of Confederation was that there was no Supreme Court. Disputes between the several states were adjudicated by Congress. If we had retained that system, it might very well have prevented the corruption we’ve seen occur with a Supreme Court.
Yet another strength of the Articles was that any amendments to the Articles had to be agreed to by all the states, as opposed to our present Constitution, which can be altered by agreement between only three fourths of the states – a situation that is, basically, tyrannical toward the remaining one fourth of the states.
Although our Constitution supposedly prohibits an income tax by requiring that all taxes be apportioned according to population, as we’ve seen, this was subverted quite easily by the international banking cartel in 1913 when they established – by illegal means – the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to pay the interest on our Federal Reserve currency, which goes directly to the bankers. This situation might have been avoided entirely by the Articles of Confederation, which provided for all taxes to be apportioned by Congress and collected by the states. In addition to this provision, the unanimity of the states required to amend the Articles, as stated above, would have prevented any possibility of an income tax being created at all and the fact that the states collected taxes would have prevented the bankers’ collection agency, known as the Internal Revenue Service, from ever existing.
Given all this, we can see, in hindsight, why the Rothschild/Freemason/Illuminati agents who steered us into a Federalized government in 1788 were so adamant about doing so. Had this been prevented and had we kept the Articles of Confederation, the history of the United States, as well as the world, would have been entirely different – and, most likely, entirely better, as well.
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona. READ MORE
New Hampshire is getting on the bandwagon and taking a stand against an intrusive, invasive, and downright despicable General Government that flaunts its power to change and re-interpret the Constitution of the United States of America at will.
HCR 6 declares in a nutshell, that any acts taken by the General Government not authorized by the Constititution of the United States of America, shall be construed as seizing the rights of the states, and shall thereby require a change in the General Government.
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled…
We are finally seeing the states asserting themselves as more than just subjects of an ever growing and ever more illegal federal government. Every state needs to be working to free itself from the grips of an ever expanding global monstrosity that masqerades as the federal government.
We all need to contact Washington state representatives and thank them for this monumental effort to halt the encroachments and overpowering actions of a government totally out of control
By: Marti Oakley 
To: Wisconsin Dairy Farmers
Derry Brownfield Live
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Letter-to-Editor.htm?EdNo=001&Info=0065109
Congratulations! You are now officially a “domestic terrorist” and considered to be the greatest threat to the government. You are the newly defined terrorist the government fears most. Please refer to the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which allows the president to declare you a “domestic terrorist” if you disagree with government policy or participate in dissenting views……which you have done if you accessed this article.
A decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) 
I have seen a rise in the number of elected officials, especially those in Congress, who seem to think only those in their district should be contacting them. With feigned politeness many have been informed that due to “professional courtesy” Her Royal Hiney Representative So & So, or his Imperial Majesty Senator I’m So Damned Important, cannot possibly respond to your email, fax or phone call because you do not reside in their district. It wouldn’t be proper. Not polite. It’s not done. What would their distinguished friend across the isle think if they knew the representative or senator was speaking to someone in their district. 
HR 2159
New York
New Hampshire is getting on the bandwagon and taking a stand against an intrusive, invasive, and downright despicable General Government that flaunts its power to change and re-interpret the Constitution of the United States of America at will.
The PPJ Gazette 