Regulations Are An Exec’s Best Friend!

“The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits.” ~Bloomberg News

By Bruce Duncil

We’re repeatedly being told that high taxes and onerous regulations are behind the joblessness in the ‘jobless recovery’. Aside from the obvious fact that there is no recovery (except for Wall Street and Washington), this ‘colloquial wisdom’ consists of lies.

No corporation pays taxes. Taxes are born solely by the customers and shareholders. Corporations are parking money offshore because that is where they have their factories, many employees who cost a fraction of American labor, and their real opportunity for growth.

Since before GE and Westinghouse lobbied congress to put the US on 60 cycle AC power to prevent European manufacturers from competing locally, and before they also lobbied for laws to ‘electrify America’ to sell every house major appliances, major corporations have LOVED regulation! Here, for your enjoyment, are 15 reasons why:

  1. When shaped properly, they limit competition, They can be used to favor some suppliers and exclude others, by design.
  2. They replace the customer with the government; the easily influenced single bureaucrat dictates market needs and wants, the latter becomes relegated to the role of mere consumer for whatever is thrown out.
  3. They allow government bureaucracy approvals, not the purchaser or user, to determine what ‘quality’ means; government approvals become synonymous with ‘quality’.
  4. They can drive, and therefore limit, requirements for innovation. All new entries must meet the criteria, thus favoring incremental rather than revolutionary product development which benefits suppliers and retailers alike.
  5. They can mandate features which can minimize the risk of product failure in the market.
  6. They facilitate development of so-called ‘public-private (government/business) partnerships’, creating revolving doors between government and business to mutually benefit employees of both.
  7. They shift the ‘burden’ of R&D along with capital investment to government (or ‘public-private partnerships’), along with the risk, costs, and choices circumscribed by R&D prior to product/service development.
  8. They benefit large and limit small companies by controlling competition and innovation, they drive industry consolidation further, leading to oligarchies which are easier to control.
  9. They can force premature product obsolescence, reducing time between necessary replacements, thus increasing purchasing and raising costs by adding additional ‘bells and whistles’ that are intended to increase profit margins
  10. They provide job security for both the government bureaucrat and the employee.
  11. They allow the means for throwing off all additional costs to the public in taxes or to consumers in higher prices at little economic risk (‘the government made us do it!’) as part of the ‘cost of doing business’.
  12. They allow additional ‘bells and whistles’ to be added, thus greatly expanding the possibility of higher after-market service contracts on products sold or leased.
  13. They leverage the public’s increasing desire to ‘standardize’ products to minimize the pain of choice.
  14. They make the public think they are magically protected from risk.
  15. They become the ‘silver bullet’ solution to every problem discovered, thus extending themselves in perpetuity!

 

 

Understand the Matrix of Liberty

Watch this video to understand the matrix of liberty.

Traitor or Patriot? You decide.

See the exclusive interview of Edward Snowden by German Television Channel NDR. He reveals the real nature of the public/private surveillance state.

To quote a recent article, “Computers and networks inherently produce data, and our constant interactions with them allow corporations to collect an enormous amount of intensely personal data about us as we go about our daily lives. Sometimes we produce this data inadvertently simply by using our phones, credit cards, computers and other devices. Sometimes we give corporations this data directly on Google, Facebook, [or] Apple’s iCloud … in exchange for whatever free or cheap service we receive from the Internet in return. The NSA is also in the business of spying on everyone, and it has realized it’s far easier to collect all the data from these corporations rather than from us directly. The result is a corporate-government surveillance partnership, one that allows both the government and corporations to get away with things they couldn’t otherwise. There are two types of laws in the U.S., each designed to constrain a different type of power: constitutional law, which places limitations on government, and regulatory law, which constrains corporations. Historically, these two areas have largely remained separate, but today each group has learned how to use the other’s laws to bypass their own restrictions. The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits. This partnership manifests itself in various ways. The government uses corporations to circumvent its prohibitions against eavesdropping domestically on its citizens. Corporations rely on the government to ensure that they have unfettered use of the data they collect. ”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/the-public-private-surveillance-partnership.html

Is he a traitor or patriot? You decide.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151#lajdTeJ8f5XEVHch.99

How the Democratic Party Went from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx

By Daniel Greenfield (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, May 12, 2009   Canada Free Press

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

“That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;” – H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows

This quote comes from H. G. Wells’ conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin’s radical revolutionary program and Wells’ own “Open Conspiracy” evolutionary collectivist program.
What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn’t disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system… socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there.
Lenin favored a violent overthrow of the existing free market capitalist systems, putting an end to democracy and individual freedoms by armed force, and replacing them with a revolutionary people’s government that would administer social justice.
As a Social Liberal, Wells favored a slow gradual takeover from within, using every cultural and political tool available to shift society over to a socialist system. He called this the “Open Conspiracy”, because social liberals would openly work to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Bill Ayers, Obama’s close associate, is a good example of Lenin gone Wells, or a revolutionary socialist becoming a social liberal. The difference is that the revolutionary socialist plants bombs, the social liberal works from within the system to achieve the same ends over a longer period of time.

The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power

In the United States, Social Liberalism took over the Democratic party in the early 20th century. That fundamental shift can be seen by comparing Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
As the last Classical Liberal Democratic President, Grover Cleveland was a firm believer in controlling the size of government, cutting taxes and vetoing most spending bills. He worked to reform the Federal government when needed, had little liking for unions or socialists and believed the Federal government should stay out of most affairs. This did not make him unusual, but in line with classical liberals all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
A mere twenty and forty years later, the next two Democratic Presidents, Wilson and FDR, were enthusiastic about expanding government and using its power to bring about social justice. The newly transformed Democratic Presidency believed that government should be in the business of regulating everything and poking its nose in everywhere. By the time FDR was using government regulation to control the price of meat and putting unions in the driver’s seat, socialism was well and truly here.
The Democratic party had gone from being classically liberal to socially liberal. Where the classical liberal thought that big government should leave people alone, and treated rights as freedom from government tyranny… the social liberal thought that government should control people to enforce social justice and disdained rights as “negative freedoms”, instead favoring “positive freedoms” that would involve government abridging rights to create social and economic equality.
The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power. Where classical liberals saw government power as a tyrannical force that needed to be controlled, social liberals saw government power as a benign tyranny that could be used to check the greater danger of unregulated social and economic systems.
Classical liberals believed freedom came from ending government intervention that created inequality. Social liberals believed that equality was more important than freedom, and that it could only be achieved by curbing anything that prevented equality.

FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society

The Social Liberal takeover of the Democratic party was not complete with Wilson or FDR. It isn’t complete today either, as there are Classical Liberal Democrats still in Congress and in various state governments. But with Obama, the Social Liberal takeover has reached almost revolutionary proportions.
The two great Social Liberal moments in the 20th century came as political opportunities resulting from crises. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were agile exploitations of an economic and social crisis that enabled them to push through a Social Liberal agenda that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government.
Obama’s ascension to power represents the Third Wave of Social Liberalism in America, exploiting the so-called economic crisis to execute an equally far reaching Social Liberal program. What the Marxists in Russia or Latin America have tried to do in a matter of years, Social Liberals in Europe and America have waited decades and even over a century to push through.
With a free market economy and a long tradition of stubborn individualism, America represented the Social Liberal’s greatest challenge. The Open Conspiracy has slowly worked to undermine that, emphasizing the security of government collectivism, pushing community over country, class and race over citizenship, and collectivization based thinking over individualism. Meanwhile America’s cultural values and national standards have been chipped away at, making it possible for the vulgar adolescent charade that was the 2008 election to take place.
By embracing social liberalism, the party of Jefferson broke down the “wall of separation” between government and the individual that served as the Constitutional guarantee of civil liberties against a tyrannical government. Social liberalism meant the end of individual rights and the beginning of civil rights with government authority placed above all else. And by doing so the Democratic party replaced individual freedoms with an all encompassing bureaucracy, and liberty with socialism, and now with Obama, America stands on the verge of closing the gap between Wells and Lenin, between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist.

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior are just some of the building blocks of the emerging “Great Society”, the socialism with a human face that Social Liberals have aimed at for well over a century. Unlike Lenin’s revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, our transition to a Marxist system was meant to be gradual and seamless. Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, the temperature was being turned up slowly and gradually. Even now when banks are being nationalized and major automakers turned over to union ownership, it is mainly people over 40 who are even noticing that anything is wrong.
The Revolution as it turns out will not be brought to you by Coke, but by Pepsi. Flags will be waved, even though they are no longer American flags. A new symbol has been created, a new seal has been set and a new America is being planted over the protesting remains of the old. But the struggle remains the same.
The question is, will we choose to be free or slaves. Will we protect our freedom from government, or give up our freedom to government. Will we come out of the shadows of Obama and the Social Liberal revolution of 2008, or will a new Iron Curtain rise over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Agenda 21 Resources

Regionalism and PPP’s: Threat to the Republic

UN Agenda 21: Global to Local – Freedom 21 – v8

Understanding Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development – A Brief Analysis

How to Handle Predetermined Consensus Meetings

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

Defeating the Delphi Technique

Defeating the Delphi – Step by Step Instructions

Freedom 21 Agenda for Prosperity

Democrats Against UN Agenda 21

Official United Nations Agenda 21 website

Exhaustive Links and Analysis of Agenda 21

Tom DeWeese: Agenda 21 & International Redistribution of Wealth

 

Tom DeWeese, the founder and director of the American Policy Center (http://www.AmericanPolicy.org) informs the sheriffs about the origins of Agenda 21, the central planning strategy that has grown out of the United Nations since 1987 to become soft law in the cities and counties across America to control all facets of the economy for an international redistribution of wealth.

On January 30-31, 2012 over 100 county sheriffs and peace officers, from over 30 states, united to uphold their oaths of office, protect citizen liberty, and stop state and federal tyranny. Inspired and led by the example of former Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, the meeting, which was held in Las Vegas, was funded by the generous donations of thousands of Americans from all fifty states, as well as the support of freedom loving sponsors.

The agenda included training on the Bill of Rights, Interposition, Nullification and the importance of Property Rights versus Privileges.  Many sheriffs, a police chief and even a county commissioner shared their experiences, challenges and actions taken to uphold their oaths of office, directly with the sheriffs in attendance.

The videos of these presentations are shared here on the County Sheriff Project YouTube channel. We hope that you will share these videos with your own county sheriff and all the oath takers in your county.  To read the meeting agenda, see the event sponsors, learn more and show your own support for helping back more constitutional county sheriffs, visit http://www.CountySheriffProject.org

NSA Spying on Americans

Do you think your phone calls are private? Watch this short set of videos and learn how all digital communications: phone, email, chat, web surfing, etc. have been systematically collected for at least 10 years by the NSA.  The first video is from CNN (approximately 1.5 minutes).

This second video is from AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein.  He explains the secret room at AT&T only accessible by NSA cleared personnel. (Approximately 5.5 minutes.)

Read the transcript of an interview with Mark Klein on PBS back in 2007. The interview explains how splitters have been installed at all peering links on the backbone of the Internet.  The splitter siphon’s off a copy of all phone and Internet traffic?  Where does it go and what do they do with it?  Watch the next video as William Binney, an NSA whistle-blower and participant in the Steller Winds Project, explains how all the data is collected and used. (Approximately 8.5 minutes.)

William Binney is among a group of N.S.A. whistle-blowers, including Thomas A. Drake, who have each risked everything — their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships — to warn Americans about the dangers of N.S.A. domestic spying; A top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.

If all of that is not enough to convince you, watch this interview with NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice as he explains that the NSA was spying on Supreme Court Judge Alito and then Senator Barrack Obama. You have to ask yourself, who is really running this country?

Read more about N.S.A. domestic spying: http://invisibler.com/the-program-interview-with-william-binney/
This is a very disturbing video about how our governmenthas been spying on US citizens.

As reported by Wired Magazine in March 2012, CIA Director/General Petraeus said we’ll spy on you through your dishwasher. See http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/. This is how the new smart meter technology will be utilized. It’s a gateway to communicate with your smart appliances.

In addition, the FBI will be spending $1 Billion on face recognition technology which can be enhanced with images from Facebook and other social media see article here: http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/.

The Patriot Act allows government agents to write their own search warrants without review by a judge and it’s illegal for you to even discuss with your attorney.  (Search YouTube for video presentation by Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding natural rights and the Patriot Act parts 1, 2, &3.) And again, under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, the provisions of the NDAA allow the federal government to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without ‘due process’ until the ‘end of hostilities’ on the order of the Executive Branch.  Without due process means, no judge, no jury, no lawyer.

When you combine the above you will see that we are losing our God given rights under natural law and under the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.  The right to freedom of speech and thought; the right to privacy and to be secure in our persons, houses, and papers; and the right to due process.  We are losing our system of checks and balances. We are moving away from the rule of law to the rule by men.

So, considering all of the above, there are two approaches.  We can either retreat and allow the controllers to continue
to implement a surveillance/police state tyranny.  Or, we can make a stand for liberty and use their own social media tools against them to make more people aware of what’s happening.  I for one will do the latter.  If we don’t stand up for our rights and freedoms, we will lose them.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Niki Raapana talks to herself about Communitarianism

October 25, 2010
Last night I started thinking about all the questions people ask me about communitarianism. I then decided to stimulate my archived brain storage with a mock interview with myself. We’re gong to post this at the newly revised and empty ACL too, but here it is for now:

Q. What is communitarianism?

A. Communitarianism is a Dictatorship of the Community. Unlike communism, which established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, communitarianism is the more advanced stage of human social evolution.

Q. Is this just a harder to pronounce version of communism?

A. No. The emerging communitarian global system has many similarities to both capitalism and communism. Most of its homeland judicial structure, land and resource use policies and social welfare programs were tested and perfected by totalitarian communists in Russia, South America, Europe and Israel. The communitarian’s financial and economic system was tested in the western imperialist and capitalist nations as well as in many of the former colonial states and developing nations classified as Third World.

Communism branched far out from its 19th century roots. Committed members evolved into Fabian Socialists, National Socialists, National Communists, Democrats, Christians, Republicans, Catholics, Fusionists, Evangelicals, Zionists, Pagans, Masons, LaRouchies and Libertarians, who all eventually adopted the common ideology of free market socialism. Imperial British American capitalists and Global Free Traders merged with mercenaries, academics, mobsters, environmental scientists and natural resource experts who all just happen to also promote free market socialism, known in academia and the higher courts as communitarianism.

The basic 1848 communist theory was that capitalism and communism were two necessary, conflicting, temporary stages in human social development. The final happy stage would arrive when the whole world descended into chaos and all sides to every conflict finally synthesized under one perfect ideology. Although Marx called the communism stage a dictatorship of the proletariat, he never said what the final stage would be called. It’s our thesis that the final stage in the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic is called communitarianism.

Q. Can you break this down into more bite size pieces?

A. We can try. Communitarianism can be broken down into four main sub sections.

1. philosophy
2. religion
3. political ideology
4. law

1. Philosophically, communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Communitarians insist that humanity cannot advance to its final evolutionary stage of perfection without the help of their expert planning, guidance and administrators, who are obviously much more enlightened than the rest of us common born sinners.

2. The religious basis for communitarianism rests in the oldest dialectic still in existence, the Talmud. Dr. Amitai Etzioni of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University in DC is the American guru. He’s a former Israeli commando who studied the Talmud and the Kaballa, and according to him, this makes him the international “expert” on how to build more livable communities.

In his 30 plus published books and hundreds of articles, Etzioni laid out standard Hegelian justifications for military and community development interventions. His solution to staged Hegelian clashes between nations is to end all nations. Etzioni assures us that individual rights and liberties can only continue to exist if they are balanced against the common good. The least discussed fact about the new legal system is that all former laws must be made agreeable to the superior unwritten Talmud. Zionist led Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic law in formerly Christian nations are part of a perfectly crafted Hegelian ploy to ensure a brutal, endless conflict continues to grow between the two primary religious barriers to communitarian global governance.

3.. Politically, it’s the Third Way, Radical Middle theory that allows its followers to justify fascist warmongering on the corporate right and encourage peace actions of the antiwar left, at the same time. Hegel taught his followers to play both sides if necessary, to flip-flop back and forth, because long drawn out staged wars and senseless bloody conflicts are essential to human advancement.

Both Bushes and both Clintons were described many times in the American press as communitarians; Senator Barack Obama was hailed by the Democrats as the Third Way Wonder Boy in 2004.

4. Communitarian Law is the legal foundation for the emerging world justice system. It’s the global standard of norms for rebuilding the world under a new model of governance with jurisdiction over all national state citizens. Internal structural changes necessary to adopting a global bureaucracy were outlined by the United Nations in Local Agenda 21. LA21 supports every UN Resolution of Rights adopted since its inception. This document expands the authority of global institutions and their global decrees into every private home and private business on the planet.

The foundation for America’s conditioning to submit to communitarian law was slipped into the U.S. under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, at about the same time the United Nations was formed. Many of the 21st century UN LA21 land and resource use regulations are enforced by local American agencies operating under the authority of this sixty four year old act.

Q. What would you define as a communitarian crime?

A. Communitarian crimes are violations of community regulations. When Americans are charged with communitarian crimes, the procedure for due process is not the same as what happens when Americans are charged with actually hurting someone or damaging someone’s property. Communitarian crimes do not require measurable property damages.

Communitarian criminals are people who took a risk, traded home farm products, sold or donated used children’s clothing, harvested natural herbal remedies, made too much noise, had an argument, smoked or farted in public, got fat, made somebody feel bad, had a dirty kitchen or dirty kids, looked scary, talked to themselves, sat down on the sidewalk, didn’t care enough about keeping the neighborhood clean, nice or safe, or refused to donate their private land to help save the trees, birds, fishes or animals.

The system is designed so that the agency that writes and adopts the communitarian law is also the agency that sits in judgment of the accused. The burden of proof is not on the state. There is no appeals process for communitarian crimes; only guilty people are charged with committing communitarian infractions of revised and updated ordinances.

Q. What is Local Agenda 21?

A. LA21 itself is a lengthy, boring document (that few will ever take the time to read). It describes the goals and ultimate purpose of equitably micromanaging all global land, people and natural resources. LA21 suggests structural changes and specific legislation to be introduced in every nation. LA21 defined a vaguely benevolent system of Community Law that overrules all contrary national and state constitutional law. The UN’s official 1987 definition of Sustainable Development is the communitarianized, spiritual version of Marx’s atheistic “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

It’s a real disadvantage to our nation that very few Americans know (or care) that every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainability immediately after LA21 was adopted. Our leaders never once bothered to tell us that LA21 is based in communitarian law or that UN Sustainable Development principles violates our precise legal contracts that say our government has to defend our private property, private business, private farms, private medicine, private worship, and private lives from all invaders, foreign or domestic.

Q. Communitarian experts say a global government would be impossible to build. Do the communitarians really have the capacity to do what they swear they can never do?

A. Almost. The communitarian global governance model shifts public duties formerly performed by answerable public servants to unaccountable private-public partnerships and community oriented development police, and it adds new duties to their job descriptions every day. The terms for Communitarian global governance have been quietly adopted for over a century in legislation, private meetings and agreements between national leaders and international community developers. All the regions and regional trade unions have already been established. Every member state in the European Union has already adapted their national legal systems and formally adopted communitarian supremacy of law. In the United States and the United Kingdom, communitarian supremacy has been introduced quietly into the national systems under the guise of Free Trade Agreements (like the early EU), environmental and consumer protections, volunteerism, service training, healthy neighborhoods, neighborhood watch, neighborhood planning, Transit Oriented and ABCD Development, 2020 Visions, Rebuilding Community, The Wars on Terror, Drugs, Smoking and Obesity, and many more ways… all designed with one Common Purpose in mind.

Q. How do we learn to recognize communitarianism in our own community?

A. At the local level, Communitarian governance bypasses the normal municipal and county government apparatus. Every agency is merged with the others. it’s called Interdepartmental Cross Training. There are no more separations of powers. Elected officials often hire city administrators and employ outside advisers and groups like ICLEI to draft communitarian plans and revised ordinances and regulations. New citizen responsibilities and requirements are swiftly adopted without debate by elected council members who all gain financially from the development games. (The list of Seattle Community Developers who earned high level posts in the Obama administration is long.) The day-to-day redevelopment of each individual community is administered by lower-level, un-elected and self-appointed councils, boards, committees, international partners, advisers and community development teams, many of whom don’t have the first clue what they’re working to implement.

Even where we live, Kenny Lake, a tiny rural Alaskan community of 400 residents, our local Community League is communitarian now. For years the league had two small jobs. They took care of the community well and hosted our tiny, once yearly, one day fair. Under the patient guidance of retired teachers, mental health providers and federal parks employee,s they’ve spiritually evolved into a Board of Directors with seven standing committees. Now they’re asking everyone here to tell them their skills so we can all volunteer to help them with all the new grant funded community economic development.

Q. How far has it penetrated in the U.S.?

A. The core foundation for the U.S. communitarian system is already established. Community Development is a standard agency in every state. The term Sustainable Development expanded from the UN into the mainstream private business sector in less than a decade. Every inch of the USA has an adopted plan and vision for the future, and the goal of every single one of them is to ensure sustainability.

In the cities, Communitarians have already conditioned Americans into accepting aspects of life in controlled collectives. Borrowing from the most successful collectives in recent history, Communitarians utilize and expand on programs, policies and ideas perfected by the British Fabians, Imperialists, Russian Soviets, Chinese Communists, Nazis, Fascists, and Israeli commandos. This is why you hear so many Americans saying “it’s socialism!” or “it’s communism!” or “it’s fascism!” or “it’s capitalism!”; many people recognize these ideologies when they see them manifesting. But it’s only once people start seeing more than one ideology going on at the same time that communitarianism begins to make total sense.

Q. Is there an easy way people can identify if a communitarian regulation is in violation of U.S. law?

A. Yes. In the U.S., any law not based in property is unconstitutional. All legitimate U.S. law must adhere to constitutional principles, and the U.S. Constitution is based entirely in property ownership. All legitimate criminal activities must produce some level of property damages. Civil suits must also request compensation for damages to property. Communitarian crimes are actions by people that interfere with the community developers’ plans for rebuilding a safer, more livable community. Anything designed to improve “quality of life” is a communitarian program.

Communitarian Law is supposed to bring the entire world peace, security, harmony and happiness. Preventing bad people from doing bad things is the communitarians enlightened, moral imperative. Like high tech soothsayers, they steal our most private information and use it to predict our future, then they use their special trained community cops to stop bad people and bad things from happening.

Q. Should I buy more guns? (I hear this one a lot!)

A. Under the communitarian system, individual rights and liberties are not always balanced against the common good in the same violent way it happened to the people of China, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The more morally evolved and quasi-spiritual communitarians are a lot nicer when they balance individual and state rights against the rights of the community in more easily persuaded countries.

Q.. Is there an easy way to spot communitarian activity?

A. Yes. Any move by a small group of concerned citizens to change community behaviors is suspect. Their activities often begin with regulating private business and updating land use regulations. If there are a lot of new agencies promoting sustainable development and the creation of small “expert” councils with sub-committees (like the Alaska Food Policy Council) we can soon expect drastic, unnecessary changes to our personal freedoms. Some actions, like the new xray scanners in American airports, are right in our face and can’t be ignored. Others are more subtle and behind the scenes; we have to look a little closer to identify them.

Right now they’re very busy teaching us our new roles as global citizens. Internationally acclaimed communitarian legal advisers teach people across the world how to teach their neighbors to become better stewards of their local environments.

To a communitarian, we become better citizens and stewards when we willingly give up any constitutional claims to unalienable rights. Community Rights are more moral than outdated Individual Protections under the people’s law. Communitarian gods and goddesses are the ones who balance our freedom to travel, move goods, offer services, produce food and products or otherwise live naturally off our privately and publicly owned lands.

Q. What’s the final result of communitarianism?

A. The communitarian system changes formerly free people from being controllers over their own lives and resources to becoming the controlled resources themselves.

Source: http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2010/10/niki-raapana-talks-to-herself-about.html

It’s My Constitution


 

“It’s My Constitution” is a lively, educational video that provides an entertaining overview of this founding document, and its importance to us today. Through a lively discussion, Travis, Christiana and Michael Loudermilk uncover the true intent of our Constitution, clarify some common misunderstandings and reveal its relevance to us today. Their father, Georgia Senator Barry Loudermilk, chimes in to provide insights into some of the key provisions of the Constitution.
 
Firm Reliance, Inc. was commissioned by the Georgia Department of Education, in recognition of the 225th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention. It was produced by Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

By: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com

It is amazing to me that so many important laws and rulings have fallen into such obscurity that when you tell people about them they scoff or even  try and ridicule you. We wonder why the constitution is ignored so much it is simply because of a lack of knowledge by the people and even  the officers of the law and courts.

So I have put together this memorandum of law on the Authority of the County Sheriff where it derives from and why the county Sheriff could save America if he understands his oath to uphold the constitution and rises to the occasion. They could be the heroes of America if they do so.  Anyway without further delay here it is:

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

The County Sheriff is a long established icon for keeping the peace and administering the law. Not only in American Jurisprudence but also in English and UK jurisprudence and in history along with many other European nations and even India.

The Sheriff is the only Officer of the law that is duly Elected by the people and thus answers to them and no one else as will be shown by this memorandum. He is not appointed and therefore is directly chosen by the people as their duly elected representative and defender of their rights. This is a very important point that has been forgotten and largely lost in these modern times.

Therefore it is the Sheriffs duty to serve and protect those who have entrusted him with their delegated authority to keep the peace and protect their rights. This is a great responsibility and not to be taken lightly. It is the hope that this memorandum of law citing the law and Rulings of the Supreme court that we can reestablish the importance of this Sacred office and educate the people and the county Sheriffs to the awesome responsibility the office of Sheriff holds in protecting the freedoms of the people of his county.

Let us look at the law and some supreme court rulings on the matter:

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

Here we have the US Constitution established as the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every state are bound by it. This is very important. All the state constitutions also very closely resemble the US Constitution. This means the Bill of Rights applies in every state and Judges and officers are bound by it and obligated to uphold these rights and take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”,“Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”

Here in Marbury v. Madison with Norton v. Shelby corroborating the supreme court has ruled that if any law is passed that comes into conflict with the Constitution it is null and void from the minute it has been passed and  there is no obligation to obey nor power to enforce and it is as if it had never existed. This is very important for Peace officers to understand and adhere to. These rulings have never been over turned and are landmark cases in American Jurisprudence.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:

In the presence of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you
fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of
office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

This is very important for all officers of the law to understand for their oaths of office are to uphold the Constitution. This is explicitly to protect the people and their rights from being abused. It is hoped that all officers think and ponder deeply on this especially in this information age when errant officers whose actions have reflected badly on the rest have been broadcast nationally. Further more officers should reflect on  any acts they enforce and whether they are constitutional. As we shall see  in more rulings it is not just for the courts to decide as many now believe.

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

“That the constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”

Bary v. United States – 273 US 128

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of
the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

We the people are the express beneficiaries of  the US Constitution.

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)

“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
… No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

This is another land mark case. We see here the supreme court as ruled that no state can charge a fee to exercise a right nor can it convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it. This is violated daily now in America. This ruling has not been overturned. Violation of this provision happens largely because both the people and officers are unaware of this ruling and its daily violation has become a matter of routine therefore tolerated as a necessary evil so to speak. One wonders how such an important Supreme court ruling could fall into such obscurity?

And further:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 2621962)

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Here the supreme court has ruled that such acts can be ignored with impunity. Again how does such an important landmark case fall into obscurity? Isn’t it time for Americans to rediscover their history and rights?

Now let us look at a specific landmark Case brought by two County Sheriffs against the Federal government and the important implications of this case in regards to the County Sheriff’s Authority and who he answers to. These Sheriff’s were Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana and Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona.  This was in regards to the enforcement of the Brady Bill by Local Sheriff’s and their refusal to do so however its rulings extend far beyond just that. This clarifies where the Sheriffs authority is derived from and that its the people who elected him and his duty to use his authority protect their rights.

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

“We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule.”

“Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States’ executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption.”

Here the court clearly states the Federal government has no authority in the County Sheriff’s Jurisdiction and even states that the opposite of having any authority is the case. This is significant as we will see in further rulings.

…the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here the Court upholds the Sovereignty of the States and the people reaffirming the tenth Amendment  and even quoting part of it and that there are rights the people have that are not listed and they are every bit as binding as those listed in the Bill of Rights.

And now for perhaps the most important part of this ruling:

***”The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (“the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]“). As Madison expressed it: ” The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]“***

Read that again if you will!  Local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy and are not subject to the General authority any more then it is subject to them within its own sphere. Did you hear that? The Sheriff is not subject to the state authority nor the federal Authority within his own sphere anymore then they are to him!!! That means the Sheriff is the highest officer of the law in his jurisdiction and the only authority he answers too is the People! That means he has the authority to protect his county from federal encroachment and enforcement of unconstitutional acts statutes and polices.

Now to any Sheriffs who may be reading this do you see your awesome responsibility of the authority that has been conferred on you? Will you protect the people of your county from Federal agents who enforce unconstitutional laws now knowing your authority? Especially since the Supreme court has ruled in several cases (and none of them have been over turned) that an unconstitutional law is null and void from inception and is as if it had never been passed? Please dear Sheriff’s think and ponder long and hard on this and resolve to uphold your oaths! We are either a nation of laws or we are not!

let us look at a few more provisions of this Land mark ruling

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve 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.” Gregory, supra, at 458. To quote Madison once again:  “In the compound republic of America, the power [delegated] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

***”When a “La[w] . . . for carrying into Execution” the Commerce Clause violates the principle of state sovereignty reflected in the various constitutional provisions we mentioned earlier, supra, at 19-20, it is not a Law . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause,” and is thus, in the words of The Federalist, “merely an act of usurpation” which “deserves to be treated as such.”***

Again we have reiteration that any unconstitutional act is not law and should be treated as such from inception. There is no need to wait for a court ruling on the law we already have the court rulings many of which our listed in this memorandum.

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.”

www.law.cornell.edu…

Obviously the point is now made with no room for misunderstanding. A link is provided to the case if one wishes to read the entire case. Also Sheriff Richard Mack has written a book on his experience and discovery of the importance of the office of Sheriff called  “County Sheriff Americas Last Hope” which everyone is strongly encouraged to read especially Sheriff’s. sheriffmack.com…

In conclusion here is a partial list of Sheriffs who have exercised their authority in their counties and prevented the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional statutes:

Sheriff Jay Printz Montana
Sheriff Richard Mack Arizona
Sheriff Dave Mattis Wyoming
Sheriff Gary Aman Idaho
Sheriff Tony DeMeo Arizona

There are more and one can do an internet search on any of their names to learn more.

Sheriffs who know and understand their authority really are Americas last hope and it is gratifying to see more and more of them speaking out and affirming our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms  during this time. It is our hope that this memorandum of law affirming that they have authority to prevent federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional acts will embolden them to rise to the occasion. Please forward to any and all Sheriffs nation wide and let them know the law and the People are on their side if they are willing to uphold their oaths of office!

Source: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com