Beam me up Scotty...

I was hoping with this blog to strike up some interest in things having to do with what is going on in this country. I was hoping to get some sort of response to the topics I discuss. I was hoping to get at least a 'You're a friggin nut' from someone. What did I get instead, SILENCE so loud it hurts my ears. Not one comment on all the things I said.


You know, I could accept being wrong on everything I said here if someone could show me evidence to the contrary of what I say. I know if I was reading this stuff and I disagreed I would definately let the person know how I felt, but NOTHING!!!!!

That not only upsets me, but it saddens me that no one seems to care one way or another about what is, or could be, going on in these United States.

I guess the next American Idol is taking up too much of their time.

Well either no one cares or their isn't anyone intelligent enough to discuss what I say reading this. Either way I sit here in silence hoping someone will respond.

How Unamerican can you get?

According to snopes.com this was posted June 30. 2004 and is true, and if that is the case it makes me want to vomit. How can these people say they represent Californians or Americans even if they disrespect our own independence day? Every one of those who were against this should find another country to live it because America does not need their kind within our borders



From John Campbell, California Assemblyman

4th of July: In each of the 4 years that I have been a member of the state Assembly, we have had many "celebrations" on the Assembly floor. These "celebrations" are orchestrated by the Democrats who control the House and often involve singing and dancing Every one of my 4 years have seen substantial celebrations of Cinco de Mayo (which Commemorates the Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla ), St. Patrick's Day (for the patron Saint of Ireland), and Chinese New Year's Day, among others. But never once have we celebrated America's Independence Day, the 4th of July.

So, this year, Republican Assemblyman Jay LaSuer of San Diego arranged for Vietnam war hero Admiral Jeremiah Denton to come to California to be a part of a 4th of July ceremony. As you may know, Admiral Denton was a Navy pilot in Vietnam who was shot down and spent 8 years in a Vietnamese prison.

In 1966 while in prison, he was interviewed by North Vietnamese television in Hanoi after torture to get him to "respond properly." During this interview, he blinked his eyes in Morse code to spell out the word "torture." He was asked about his support for the war in Vietnam to which he replied "I don't know what is happening now in Vietnam, because the only news sources I have are Vietnamese. But whatever the position of my government is, I believe in it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live." Four of his 8 years in prison were spent in solitary confinement. He later wrote the book "When Hell was in Session" chronicling his experience in Vietnam.

When he stepped off the plane after being released from prison in 1973, he said "We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country in difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our Commander-in-Chief for this day. God bless America."

Suffice it to say, Jeremiah Denton is unquestionably an American hero.

The Democrat leadership refused to allow him on the Assembly floor, and there was no 4th of July celebration. A memo from the Democrat speaker's office said "problems have arisen both with regards to the spirit, content, and participation of various individuals with regard to the ceremony." Apparently, they said that he did not believe in the "separation of church and state" and therefore they would not allow him to be on the Assembly floor or to speak.

Downfall of America? Preface

I have just posted a series of articles I wrote voicing my thoughts on the principles that I believe our country was founded upon and the things wrong with it today. I would hope that some of you are of an open enough mind to take the time to read through them and comment. You don't have to agree, just read.

Thanks,

Neal

Downfall Pt 1

Part One

If I were to ask you how you spent your free time, how would you respond? Do you have a hobby? Do you spend your time doing yard work? Do you go fishing or spend your time involved in other sporting events? Maybe you just sit back and watch the television? Or maybe you go online and goof off there.

How many of you would be able to say that you spent even a small amount of time researching information about things that are happening in this country? How many of you take what the news agencies say as fact without verifying the information through other sources? How many of you think the news agencies are telling you everything that is going on that affects your lives? How many of you research what your elected officials are doing?

If I gave you some information about things that might be going on in this country would you read it or just ignore it? If I told you that the United States may cease to exist as we know it, would you pay attention? If I told you that every Senator holding office is doing so illegally would you care? Would you take the time to research it for yourselves or would you say I was a conspiracy nut and blow me off? (That is what seems to be happening to me a lot lately)

It is to those of you who do not pay attention or do not care enough to research issues that I am addressing now. I would like hear your reasons for not taking just a little time to search for the truth. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I take the time to look around for answers. Are you willing to take the chance that I am right and you just sat back and ignored me?

You might tell me that you are just too tired or busy to spend the time researching information like that. Let me tell you about tired and busy. I bust my ass at work every day. I dump fruit for use in a packaging plant or sometimes I unload it from trucks for use later. Usually the weight I deal with daily is between 15-25 tons of fruit. Then I come home and we have a garden with about 250 to 300 roses and other assorted bushes and shrubs that need watering or pruning. I also grow bonsai that need taking care of. Sometimes I cook dinner, wash clothes or clean around the house. I still find time to go online and research, EVERY NIGHT! So what is your excuse again?

I know some of you might be my friends, but your apathy sickens me. Some of you may say you care, you might even send me e-mails about issues that upset you. Why e-mail me? I can't do any more to change things than you can. Why don't you e-mail your elected officials? Or do you even know how to contact them? Why don't you write your local papers? Why don't you spend some time online searching about the activity of your elected officials? Your apathy is part of a cancer that is spreading rapidly through this country, and it will be the downfall of us as a nation if we don't pull our heads out of our asses and wake up to what is going on.

Mad at me yet? Tough, because I am only getting started. Hopefully this series of papers will wake some of you up. I know that to wake every one up is just too much to ask. Some of you will continue to glue your sorry asses to the television every night. TV, the opiate of the thinking impaired, what a waste of time! How can anyone consider shows like Access Hollywood, American Idol, or Desperate Housewives intellectually stimulating? You tell me one show on the television that could possibly be more important than the future of our country and I might forgive you, but since you can’t I have no sympathy. You are part of the problem, and I could care less if I upset you! Daniel Webster once said, "God grants liberty to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it"

So if I have gotten your attention and you want to know more, come back and see what I have to say. If not I would like to leave you with a quote by Samuel Adams.

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”

I feel as Samuel Adams did when he spoke those words. I may know you, but I do not consider you patriotic Americans if your television, your fishing, your beer, or whatever it is you do with your free time is more important than the future of our country. It is time you research some information that could scare the hell out of you if it is true.

Your call, what’s it going to be? Are you going to take a chance to stop your country from going down the toilet, or are you going to sit back and watch your silly TV. Shows? I know the path I will chose, do you?

Downfall Pt 2

Part Two

How many of you have ever read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? I mean really read them and thought about what they actually say? How many of you have ever read some of the quotes by our founding fathers referring to subjects mentioned in those documents? How many of you know of, or have read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? How many of you understand how this form of government we have is supposed to work? Did you know how serious the Constitution was to the public at the time it was written? Let me give you a quote by John Jay, written prior to the ratification of the Constitution. It talks about how important it was for people to think over the decision they were about to make very thoroughly.

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident. Federalist Papers #2

You think you understand our government. You think we have a democracy, don't you? That is what you have been taught, but it isn't the truth.

We have a Republican form of government. Let me tell you what James Madison said,

A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. Federalist Papers #39

Since I have given you two quotes from them, let me explain what the Federalist Papers are. They are a series of articles penned by a few of our founding fathers, under pseudonyms, that were published to try and convince the states to ratify the Constitution. The founding fathers were fearful that the people would not ratify it, so they penned these articles to explain in depth new proposed form of government. If anything at all should explain in depth the principles of how our government should work, it is the Federalist Papers. So all through this series of articles I will rely upon them, as well as other quotes by our founding fathers. It is by reading their words that you should be able to see how our government should run, not how it is running today.

So, even if you have read over the Constitution do you think it is being followed by our government? Given the criteria I have laid out do you think our leaders are doing what our founding fathers envisioned?

Do you realize how much of the Constitution has already been perverted? Do you know how many of your rights are already diminished, if not entirely gone?

Thomas Jefferson said,

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Do you consider yourself ignorant? In society today if you call someone ignorant they take it as an insult concerning their intelligence, that is not always the case. Webster’s II New College Dictionary defines ignorant as; 1. Without knowledge or education. 2. Displaying lack of knowledge or education. 3. Unaware or uninformed: oblivious. At no time does it say stupid.

So do you think you are aware of what is going on or are you ignorant? I hope to inform and educate you so that you can see for yourselves how much of your liberty has been infringed upon already. Do you remember the KGB from the old Soviet Union? Do you remember the SS from Hitlers’ Germany? Do you know the fear and absolute power they held over the people? Do you wish that fate for yourself or your children? If not, you should read on. If you aren’t concerned, go back to whatever it is you were doing. When reality comes and slaps you in the face don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Downfall Pt 3

Part 3

Some of you may wonder why I am wasting my time writing these papers. I am writing because I have become frustrated, frightened, and more than just a bit upset with the way things are going in this country of ours. I feel, as Americans, we have lost our direction and sense of purpose and are wandering aimlessly through very dangerous and troubling times.

As a nation, and unfortunately, we always seem to look to our government for solutions to these problems. What we want is a remedy for the symptoms. We do not have the courage to face up to what is the cause of these problems. It is like a medical patient who wants pain killers but does not want to fix the problem. Eventually he becomes addicted to pain pills without ever curing the problem. So, when we turn to the government to solve a problem we become dependant upon them to solve all our problems, like the person in pain becomes addicted to drugs.

So what is the real problem? The problem is us, you and I, the American people, the 'We the people' mentioned in the Constitution. We have become apathetic when it comes to the concerns of our government. We have lost our moral compass and work ethics. We have lost what it means to be patriotic Americans.

You could say you are patriotic, you fly the flag, you sing along with the national anthem at sporting events, you support the president, you vote. Is that what you think it takes to be an American? Do you think that blind obedience to a political party is American? Do you think voting Republican or Democrat without seeing if your candidate has a record of upholding the Constitution is American?
We no longer take our responsibilities as citizens seriously. We have allowed our government to run rampant upon our rights and strip us of our self-reliance as long as they give us a little security. We have welcomed Big Brother into our homes and lives, but that reliance comes with a heavy price. Are you willing to pay it?

Samuel Adams once said,

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

We are at that point again; we have to decide if we want to be servants or free men. We have to decide whether we want riches or liberty. We ultimately have to decide whether we want to remain a sovereign nation or a part of a larger union of nations stripped of our constitutional rights. Our government has forgotten whom it represents and we have lost the courage to stand up to remind them by being true patriots.

I would like to say I no longer blindly choose to affiliate myself with either of the two primary political parties in this country. Blind faith in either party is one of the reasons we have gotten to where we are now. Both parties have led us down this road to ruin and we have stood back and allowed it to happen. There are a few standouts in both parties who really try to do what is right, but for the most part, they all need to be removed from office and replaced as soon as possible. If I had my way they would be held accountable for their crimes and face jail time for violating their oaths of office.

I used to vote Republican because that is what my parents voted. Then as I grew older, I voted Republican because they were the ‘conservative’ party. Now, after much reading and research, I cannot see much difference between the two parties. They speak from opposite ends of the political spectrum but the end result is the same, more government regulation and interference in our lives. They both offer differing views on how this country should be run, but do things never get any better? Things continue to get worse and I have begun to believe that both parties have the same idea, more government, less liberty for us. I have been accused of being a Libertarian, but that is not the case. I think I am more inclined to be called a Constitutionalist. I favor strict adherence to the Constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. I fully support the ideology of A.C.E., Americans For Constitutional Enforcement. If you want to learn more about them you can go to their webpage here.

I used to keep my opinions to myself. Not any more! Now I am growing more fearful of what is happening and what is going to happen to this country if things do not change, if you do not wake up and hold your elected officials accountable. In short the American public needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses and start paying attention to what is going on. If we don‘t, our way of life as we know it will end.

All I am asking is that you read what I have to say with an open mind. If you cannot do that, then all hope for the future of this country is lost already. You do not have to believe what I have to say, but I do ask you to research it by visiting the numerous webpages I provide. You can read the information for yourselves. Then you can decide if you still want to sit back and watch your country deteriorate even further. The choice will be yours and the blame will be upon your heads, not mine, for I will have warned you.

Downfall Pt 4

Part 4


Before I go any further I would like to ask some simple questions. Answer honestly, nobody but you will see your answers. Then think about how you answered and decide if you are doing your part as citizens of this Republican form of government we live under.

1. Do you know who your elected officials are, (President, Senators, Congressman, Governor, State legislators)?
2. Do you know how to contact them?
3. Have you ever contacted them?
4. Do you vote in every election, including primaries?
5. Do you pay attention to how your elected officials vote on issues that effect you?

The more 'no' answers you got, the more you are part of the problem. Unless you are oblivious to all the problems this country is facing you should be writing or calling your elected officials often. If you don't like the way they respond to your concerns, then you have the responsibility to let them know how you feel at the election booth.

With the dismal numbers of registered voters who show up to vote you are not alone in sharing the blame. I vote in every election since I registered to vote back in 1976 I have a very large stack of letters which I have written to everyone who needs my vote to stay in office. I also have every reply from them.

I monitor their votes on every issue that I find important. You can do this too if you want. Go to govtrack. There you can sign up to follow individual members of Congress or the status of legislation and who voted for/against it, as well as the speeches they give on the floor of Congress.

That is the first step, keeping informed on what they are doing and voting them out of office if you don't agree with how they are representing you.

Daniel Webster said;
"Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government"

Can you, with all honesty, say that you are as attentive to the concerns of your government as you should be? I would like you to read a few more quotes before I continue.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
Patrick Henry

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

Wise men that refuse to participate in the affairs of government are punished by having to live under the rule of fools.
Plato

It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back.
Thomas Jefferson




So, do you think you are well informed? Do you think you really know everything your elected officials are doing? If you contact them do you think they hear your voice and care about your wishes? Do you think they uphold their oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

You might answer yes to some of those questions, but by the time you read this entire series of papers you will probably be thinking something entirely different. That is if you truly care about the direction this country is taking.

Downfall Pt 5

Part 5

I think now would be a good time to cover the two documents that define what this country is all about; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

To cover these two documents fully would take far too much time and space, so I will go over them as briefly as possible. I do think it should be required reading for all citizens and those who wish to become citizens. For how are we to know how well our government is doing if we are unfamiliar with the rules they are obliged by law to follow?

The Declaration of Independence was the document that severed the umbilical chord that tied us to Britain. You might call it our nations birth certificate. It is in two sections, the Preamble which outlines what the intent of the document is, and the body which outlines the reasons for doing so.

I would like to focus on the Preamble, because in my opinion it could also be applied to circumstances today as well. (emphasis added)


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Thomas Jefferson wrote that, and in my opinion it is one of the most eloquent pieces of literature ever written.

Pay particular attention to the italicized paragraphs. To paraphrase them it basically says, that we have rights, given to us by God, and that governments are created to protect those rights. The governments derive their power from the people, that is to say that they don't do anything without our consent. It also says that when a government becomes too powerful or unmindful of our wishes and desires it is our duty to alter or abolish that form of government. It finally says that the steps to altering or abolishing a form of government is not something to be taken lightly, but when a series of abuses take place it is our duty to step up and do what is needed to protect our rights and freedoms.

Another thing to consider before moving on to the Constitution is that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we were still a colony of the British government. Even though we were declaring our independence from them, the British still considered us a part of their country. Therefore those who drafted and signed that document were committing an act of treason against Britain. It was not something that they took lightly, for they knew their livelihood and quite possibly their lives could be forfeited by doing so. It took men of great character and courage to take that step towards independence, and that is something we might all think about in the years to come. Do we have men of that caliber living among us today? If so is the rest of the country willing to hear what they have to say or are they going to sit back and let their country be taken from them? It is a question that haunts me constantly, and I hope for the sake of the nation that there will be enough people who are willing to stand up for our rights and freedoms when the time comes.
I refer you once more to what Samuel Adams said,

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Downfall Pt 6

Part 6

Since the Constitution is of great importance and it deserves a lengthy discussion, I will try to break my thoughts down into one article per section of the Constitution. Before I start I would like you to read the words of Patrick Henry before you begin considering what I have to say.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

I will begin our discussion with the Preamble. If you have done any kind of writing, the Preamble is just basically an opening statement. It defines the purpose and intent of the document that follows it. The Preamble to our Constitution says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There are 52 words in the Preamble to the Constitution, but they contain enough meaning to fill pages. I would like to go over a few of the points I find of most importance.

The first words, "We the people of the United States...", declare that this document, which forms our government was created by the people of this country. It does not mean it was written by any existing form of government, it was written by the people themselves. It could have been written by you and I had we been alive back then. It would be obvious then that the people would write a document that would protect their rights and liberties and provide for their best interests.

The next part states "...in order to form a more perfect union...". That would imply that it was written to create a form of government that was to benefit the union, and by union it meant the United States of America.

This point is important in that the Constitution was written by the people to create a form of government that would form a more perfect union of the United States. It was written to defend we as a people, states, our sovereignty as a nation, and not to benefit any country other than ours. Remember this fact later!

Following that it continues with, "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

That in itself is a mouthful and is of great importance today. Are we establishing justice when criminals have more rights than their victims? Are we providing for the common defense with a flood of illegal aliens entering this country at will? Are we promoting the general welfare when we allow businesses to outsource labor to other countries and do away with American jobs? Are we securing the blessings of liberty when our rights are being trampled upon by new legislation, NSA spying, and a blind Supreme Court?

Finally the Preamble closes with, "...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." To reiterate what I said earlier this closing statement says that this Constitution is for us, the United States. It is not meant to benefit the United Nations, Mexico, or any other country. It establishes us as a sovereign nation and creates the form of government we are to have.

The Constitution was considered by those who wrote it to be of great importance. The writing of it was fraught with disagreements over the form our new government should take. Finally these wise men came together and created the form of government that best established security for our country and at the same time protected the rights of the people. John Jay wrote, in the Federalist Papers,
"WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Even though the Constitution has been ratified for years, don’t you think if it deserved that much attention by the people back then that it’s importance should not be diminished? Don‘t you think that what it says should be just as important for you today? Get a copy, read it, ponder what these men meant when they wrote it.
With that thought in mind if we take a close look at the Preamble we can already see there are some problems with the government we have today as envisioned by those wise men who wrote the Constitution.

Downfall Pt 7

Part 7



Article I is the part of the Constitution that deals with the legislative branch of the government, which includes the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The first sections of Article I outline the legislative branch and who is eligible to hold seats and term limits.

Section 3 is the first part I would like to pay particular attention to.

Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof..."

Section 3 of the Constitution was written in such a way so that the individual state legislatures had the power to select, and, if need be, remove senators from office. They wrote it that way so that the states would have some say in how the federal government created legislation that would affect them. It was one of the many checks and balances that our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.

James Madison states in Federalist Papers #51 that,
"The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit."

Notice that he states different modes of election. Do we have that now when the public votes for both Senators and Congressmen? It is one little tweaking of the Constitution that has caused ripple effects to pass on so that our Senate is no longer beholden to the states but instead to special interest groups.

Section 3 was changed by the 17th amendment when they made the election of senators by popular vote. That took away any say the states had in the function of the federal government. Since states rights have been diminished the balance of power has been altered leaving the states without any say in the operation of the federal government.

The 17th amendment could be considered unconstitutional in itself because of Article V, Clause 3. That states that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." When Senators do not follow the will of their constituents, which is to say the states themselves, their constituents are being deprived of representation and should be able to recall or replace their Senators. A fine example of this is Senate Resolution 2611 which grants amnesty to illegal aliens. A majority of the populace want stricter control over illegal immigration, yet their Senators voted to relax laws regarding illegal immigrants. If Section 3 were still functional the states could recall those Senators who voted for this legislation and have them replaced with someone who would carry out the will of the people they represent.

Finally, if you want to conclusive proof that the founding fathers put Section 3 of Article I in the Constitution, read what Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist Paper #9,

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government".

Section 6 of Article I states that "Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law."

Before I go any further I would like to quickly comment on law. I have tried to read some of the legislation our elected officials pass into law. There is a quote by James Madison that I think these elected officials should remember when they pass any laws. It states.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

So when our legislators pass new laws, they should be able to be read and understood by those of us they affect. It is no wonder that they can hide so much fraud and waste in a bill that cannot be understood by anyone that reads it.

Back to Section 6, what that basically means is they should be paid for the work their services according to law. I would like to see the law that states that they can vote themselves pay raises whenever they see fit. I would like to see the law where it says they can vote themselves retirement and medical packages that are far better than that of the average American. I sure wish I could walk into my bosses office tell him I am giving myself a raise and better benefits and he is going to pay for it, especially if I am not doing my job according to the rules outlined for my performance.

The next section, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization". With all the attention focused on illegal immigration today, and the passage of Senate Resolution 2611 it has become apparent that they have been negligent in their duty on this issue. I would like for you to read a quote by Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers #15,
"Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation."

Taking that in mind we already have laws regarding what is considered legal immigration. The problem lies not with the laws, but in the enforcement of them. Congress can pass as many laws as they want, but if they are not enforced they are nothing more than mere suggestions, as Hamilton stated. And with Senate Resolution 2611 these lawbreakers will be given amnesty for their crime, and the door will be opened for more immigrants to flood our borders.

Also that clause states that it shall be a uniform rule of naturalization. I have firsthand experience with this issue. My wife is a naturalized Filipina. She petitioned her sister six years ago and is still waiting for a visa to be issued for her sister. Why then is our Senate voting to grant amnesty to people who enter this country illegally, yet those of us who are following existing laws are being punished by long waits? Does that sound uniform to you? Me either!

Section 8 also states that Congress shall have the power to;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Are we not in a war now? Was that war ever officially declared by Congress, or was it started by a president with a ulterior motive?

James Madison said; "The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. " So why are we at war with Iraq and the terrorists in the middle east now?

Also do we not also have an annual defense budget that is paid for by our taxes? Yet the Constitution declares that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." So why do we continue to pay taxes for standing armies? I understand that in the world we live in we need a well equipped military, ready to defend our nation, but the Constitution should be amended to allow for it. As it stands now continued taxation to support a military goes against what the constitution says.

Section 8 also states Congress shall have the power to;
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

How long has it been since the Congress called forth the militia? Do we even have a militia? This is what James Madison said about the militia, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country“. So I ask you again, do we have a militia? Some would say the Reserves and the National Guard are our militia, but they are paid members of the armed forces. The militia at the time of the writing of the Constitution consisted of armed citizens who fought for their country. With that definition wouldn’t it now be a good time to call forth the militia, with the invasion of all these illegal immigrants. These illegal immigrants, which also include violent drug runners and gang members. Are we not being invaded? Isn't that what the militia was for, to repel invasions? Then why hasn't Congress called them into action in the defense of their country?

Section 9 covers taxation. One of the clauses says that;
"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

That was changed by 16th amendment. The 16th amendment states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That basically gives the Congress the right to tax us at will and for whatever they deem fit. Daniel Webster said that,

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy"

That is a basic overview of Article I of our Constitution. I would suggest, as I will at the end of each section, that you read the document in its entirety for yourselves. As you can already see there are some discrepancies between how our founding fathers envisioned our government and how it exists today. These discrepancies might appear minor but they have serious implications on a larger scale that will become apparent as I go on in later articles.

Downfall Pt 8

Part 8

My next discussion will cover Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the executive branch of the government, the offices of the President and Vice President.

As in Article I, Section I outlines the requirements for who can become President and the process by which the President shall be elected. However, at the end of Section I there is a clause that is well worth paying attention to. It states,
"Before he enters the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation :--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

I will refer back to this oath of office in the future, but just remember that every President who ever held office swore this oath. They swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means that in the performance of their duties they shall not step outside the bounds of authority that this document outlines for their office. If they do they will be in violation of their oath of office and therefore should be removed from office. On a side note Senators and Congressmen also take a similar oath and therefore should be held just as accountable in the performance of their duties.

Before I continue there are some quotes I would like you to ponder when thinking about the kind of person you should want to elect to hold the office of President.

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man"
Samuel Adams

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions"
Daniel Webster

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad"
James Madison

If you look at the first quote by Samuel Adams you are a friend to the liberty of this country you should not vote for someone who isn't virtuous. What exactly is virtue? One of the definitions in Websters dictionary says that virtue is, 1.Moral excellence and righteousness: Goodness. A Presidents virtue is a reflection of the man and we should not elect men or allow them to stay in office if they prove themselves unfit to hold it by measure of their lack of virtue. Many of the candidates now complain about the media digging into their personal lives. We have the right as voters to know if the man we are voting for is lacking virtue. We do not want your kind holding the highest office in the land.

The second quote, this one by Daniel Webster says that every time the government wants to assume more power it will be on the grounds of good intentions. In other words they say that the end justifies the means, but the Constitution was written to guard the people against that very thing. So when we see the government expanding their control and power over our lives in the name of good intentions we should immediately be wary.

Finally, the last quote by James Madison is of particular importance today. The loss of liberty at home will be charged to threats, real and pretended from abroad. Is that not what is happening now with the Patriot Act, the NSA spying on our phone calls? We are losing our liberties all in the name of a war on terror. How many more of our liberties will be infringed upon? How long will they be infringed upon? Do you think that if we ever win the war on terror they will be restored to us? Some things to think about while you consider whether or not our President is upholding his oath of office as our founding fathers envisioned? If you don't think so then the next quote by Madison ought to alert us to do something about it.

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. "

This quote will apply quite often when I begin discussing the Bill of Rights.

Let us now continue with Article II and what it says about the office of President of the United States.

Section 2 states, "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia...". There is that term militia again. Where is our militia? I would like to know who is a member of the militia in my neighborhood. I haven't seen any militia in my 48 years of living in this country, have you? As far as I know we don't have one at this stage in our history, yet the Constitution repeatedly mentions it. How can the President be in charge of something we don't even have? I would think that the militia would be a vital part of our national defense, but we don't seem to have one. So does that role fall to the military? If so, why are they not allowed to use force in the Presidents plan to control illegal immigration? I wonder what the publics outcry will be when an American soldier is killed by a drug runner crossing the border because he was not authorized to shoot back.

Section 2 goes on to say that, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..." This is very important also, and you will see why in much greater detail in a section later on. For now it is important to note that this clause states, "..by and with the advice and consent of the Senate...". That implies that any and all treaties signed by the President are approved by Senate. That means they agree with the treaty. Remember that point also in a later section of this paper when I discuss some of the treaties we are signing under the current administration.

The last point I would like to make in Section 2 is the final clause, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Why would this clause be so important? It is in the last sentence that we get a glimpse of the answer. Remember back in Article I where it stated that the Senators shall be chosen by the state legislature? Well the President holds the power to fill vacancies that might occur, but only for the duration of the next session, after which they would expire. After that it would fall back upon the state legislators to fill the vacancy. Federalist Papers #67 goes into this issue in great detail. You can read the entire paper at,
federalist

This issue is of great importance because the writers of the Constitution wanted the states alone to have the power to select their Senators. It was one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution, but if need be the President could fill vacancies that might open up during recess until the states could fill them by the method prescribed in Article I.

Section 3 goes over the requirements of giving Congress a state of the union address every so often. The State of the Union always seems to be strong according to all the addresses I can recall seeing. Yet if you ask the American people, you might hear a different story. It has become more and more a platform for the President to convince the country to go along with his policy.

Section 4 covers the methods of removing a President or Vice President. It states, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for , and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I would like to give the definition of treason at this time. Websters dictionary defines treason as; 1 Violation of allegiance towards one's country or sovereign, esp. the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid it's enemies. 2. Betrayal of confidence or trust.

That concludes my thoughts on Article II of the Constitution. It doesn't seem like I covered much when it covers an office of such importance, but believe me, I will refer back to it quite often in later sections of this paper. I have brought some important points to your attention for later reference. Believe me, they will all be of great importance later.

Downfall Pt 9

Part 9

Article III of the Constitution deals with the judiciary of our government. It is a simple Article and therefore is pretty straightforward. The only area I want to pay attention to is in Section II.

The wording I refer to states,

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."

I am by no means a legal expert so everything I state here is personal opinion unless otherwise noted as a quotation.

Laws are written to give us guidelines to live our lives so that we live in a society free of chaos. In a perfect world people would obey the laws by virtue of their moral character. But the world is not perfect. James Madison once said,
"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. "

So, since men are not angels we need government, and laws to govern over them. On the other hand since angels do not govern us we need to watch over our government.

When someone does violate a law they become the introduced to our criminal justice system. It is then the responsibility of the courts to administer fines, and or prisons sentences for their offense. Now I would like for you to read a few quotes by our founding fathers.

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Papers #15,

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms.

He states that laws be "...attended with a sanction; in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience." How many times do criminals get off with a slap on the wrists due to a plea bargain? Where is the penalty or punishment for their crime? How many times are criminals never even made to pay for their crimes? All the illegal immigrants in this country are criminals. Why are they allowed to walk freely without paying for their crime?

Thomas Jefferson said,
Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.


He basically said that our laws say you can come from another country but at the same time you should abide by our established rules. How much of our society has been bent to meet the needs of people not willing to abide by our rules? English as a second language in our schools, the sacrifice of our religious beliefs to not offend others. Those are things that made this country what it is today, yet our Supreme Court, and other Federal Courts have gone against the wishes of the citizenry on these same issues. Is that not going against what Jefferson means by abiding by our rules?

Jefferson also said that,

"Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible."

Since time produces a corruption of principles, and that it is our duty be on the watch for our for it, isn't it also our duty as citizens to also watch over the decisions our Supreme Court makes? That way we can ensure that they are based on principles that are not corrupted and do not go against the Constitution itself.

Fine examples of time producing corruption of principles are the frivolous lawsuits that judges in our court system rule in favor of. The woman who spilled hot coffee on her legs sued McDonalds and won. That should never have been allowed to be tried by a judge. Stupidity does not entitle you to a million dollars. The guy who sued the fast food industry because he got fat from eating burgers all the time, and WON. Again, if he wanted to stay skinny he should have eaten better food, not sued and won. The list goes on and on. While I am on the topic, what about people who break into your home or trespass upon your property and are injured then sue you and win. Where are your rights as property owners?

Law abiding citizens are being penalized for the action of criminals or stupid people and our courts are upholding these cases.

If you shoot someone who is breaking into your home you can face jail time for defending yourselves. They claim you should rely upon the police to protect you. That goes against the principles our founding fathers lived by.

Also a renowned professor of Constitutional and Criminal law, Don B. Kates once stated,

"It is quite impossible for the police-and indeed, it is not their job to provide individual protection for threatened individuals. The job of the police is to provide general deterrence by patrolling areas where crime may occur and by apprehending those who have committed criminal acts. necessarily, the law places the primary responsibility for protecting threatened people on the people themselves."

So when our courts rule against the people for defending their homes, property and families they are tying the hands of the people and denying them their rights as outlined in the Preamble and the concepts behind the writing of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore these judges are in violation of the Constitution and their rulings should be invalid.

James Madison said,
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. "

Does not this state that the rights of property are the first object of government? Therefore our right to the defend our property from criminals should be of the utmost concern of our government. Also the right to keep our property should also be of the utmost concern of our government. Yet our courts have recently been allowing property to be taken from individuals under the concept of eminent domain. So they can take your home, bulldoze it and build a mini mall? Is that something our founding fathers would have considered Constitutional? Yet our Supreme Court has allowed it to happen.

Finally one more quote by Madison and I will have completed my coverage of Article III. Many people now argue that new laws have been passed and our courts are basing their rulings on these new laws and legal precedents. James Madison said that,

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

That is why I am including so many quotes from our founding fathers in this continuing article. Our President, our Senators and Congressmen, and our Supreme Court are basing their actions on the moral climate of the time and laws that have been written after the ratification of the Constitution. They are forming political policy based upon public opinion polls. As our society becomes more and more corrupt and morally debased our elected officials are following right behind us since they are basing their policy upon our opinions. Therefore the taking of a life by abortion is acceptable when it would have been unheard of 200 years ago. The Courts and our elected leaders are not basing their decisions historically. I am providing thoughts from those who wrote the Constitution to give you an idea of how they would have felt on an issue. So whenever you hear of a new law or Supreme Court ruling, think to yourself, ‘Are those the same decisions that what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, or Alexander Hamilton would have made for our country?”

That is how I now look at every decision made by the Supreme Court and every piece of legislation proposed by our elected leaders. In my honest opinion our government is defiling the Constitution and slapping the face of those great men who established this form of government .

Downfall Pt 10

Part 10

Article Four of the Constitution deals with states rights and how to deal with legal interests of one state when it involves another. It also covers extradition of criminals who flee one state for another.

There is one important section at the very end, Section 4. It says

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. "

Notice it says that the United States shall protect each of the states from invasion. Have we not been invaded and are continuously invaded on a daily basis by illegal immigrants? Where is our protection as guaranteed by the Constitution? I have written my elected officials numerous times on this issue and I get nothing but hot air about Senate Resolution 2611 from my State Senators, and silence from my Congressman and the President.

This alone is a violation of their oaths of office when they swore to uphold the Constitution. Yet we the people whine and complain, but come election time we vote these same idiots back into office. WHY? Do you not pay attention to how they voted on this issue? Do you not know they are breaking the law by doing so? Do you not care? That is why I say that we the people are at fault, because we allow this nonsense to continue. I for one am sickened by your lack of concern and I am ashamed to call you fellow Americans!

That concludes my thoughts on Article 4 of the Constitution. Since it was a short section I will continue on with Article 5.

Article 5 is a short article also, but it covers how to amend the Constitution. So therefore it is of great importance, since any amendment to the Constitution if not thought over seriously could have a detrimental outcome.

Article 5 states,

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I would like for you to read that, then read it again and think about what it says. First off, when two thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary they can propose an amendment to the Constitution. That just means it is a suggestion, not an actual change yet. Or the legislatures of two thirds of the states can call for a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. That is just the first step, it is just the act of making a suggestion that something be added to or changed within the Constitution.

The next step to changing the Constitution is that the proposed amendment has to be ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states. That means at least 37 or 38 of the states have to agree to the change before it becomes official.

The 16th and the 17th amendments were never ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, therefore they are invalid. That is why I spoke out so fervently about that issue when covering Article 1 of the Constitution.

If you read Section 2 of Article one it says that,

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress..."

That is how our founding fathers set up the power of the federal government to tax you. Now let's look at the 16th amendment. It says,

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

Read that closely, it basically means that they can tax you however they damn well please. They have done so, continue to do so, and will continue to do so unless you stand up for your rights and say enough taxation, enough government spending.

Think about something now. One of the reasons we went to war with England was because of taxes. Did you know that you now work almost all of the first 5 months of each year to pay the taxes you will pay throughout the year? If they did not tax you on anything at all through the year, that would include taxes on gas, electricity, telephone, the highways, your property, and all your sales taxes etc. etc. do you know how much extra money you would have. How about they then send you a bill at the end of the year for all taxes due, you would most likely have a heart attack! Yet they squeeze it from you little by little and we do nothing to say, STOP! Why, don't you want to keep as much of your money as possible? Yet you sit back and allow yourself and your wallets to be raped by a tax hungry beast that we have elected to represent us.

I have already covered the 17th Amendment and the implications of that.
I would urge you to contact your state legislature and have them work to repeal the 17th amendment. Return the authority over electing Senate members back to the states. Just think, the U.S. Senate voted to pass Senate Resolution 2611 which grants amnesty to illegal aliens. The people don't want it, and a good portion of the states don't want it. If the 17th Amendment were repealed every Senator who voted for it would face recall by the states they are supposed to represent. Not the special interest groups who line their purses and pay for their campaign expenses.

If you think that the 17th Amendment is not important read the following. (emphasis added)

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,1 the Supreme Court held that state interests are more properly protected from federal encroachment by the procedural safeguards found in the federal political process rather than by judicially defined limitations.2 Justice Powell, in a strong dissent, asserted that the majority's decision reduced the tenth amendment to "meaningless rhetoric."3 In explaining its decision, the majority observed that State governments, through equal representation in the Senate, retain sufficient influence over the federal political process to insure their autonomy and sovereign interests.4 The Court, however, recognized that the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the popular election of Senators, may have diminished the influence that state governments have over the federal political process and, thereby, the effectiveness of the states' role in that process.5

Does that now show you that even the Supreme Court recognized the implications of the 17th Amendment? A good webpage to read about the 17th Amendment can be found at here I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of the states ability to monitor and have a say in how government operates. The 17th Amendment took that away and since then government has grown bigger, taxes have risen and we have lost the ability to make a difference. Our Senators now listen to those who finance their campaigns, not the states they represent.

That concludes my thoughts on Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution. The next segment will cover the last two, Articles 6 and 7.

Downfall Pt 11

Part 11

Article 6 of the Constitution is a short article but it contains plenty of meaning. It states,

"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 the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. "

The first sentence, 'This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..." states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you want an analogy then think about it this way. You have the laws written by man and the laws given to us by God. Whose laws are more binding and should be followed? Of course in today's society you might conclude that mans laws are more binding, but man will not sit and judge you at the end of days, God will.

So the Constitution is supposed to be the last and final say in all legal matters concerning the operation and function of our government. If you boil things down, anyone who violates this law is a criminal. Any elected official who does not uphold their oath of office to uphold the Constitution is a criminal. See the final sentence of Article 6 in which, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Anyone who is supposed to represent us, the people, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes all amendments. So any legislation, our court ruling which goes against what the Constitution says is invalid and it's author should be held criminally liable. Think about this when you see laws being passed which infringe upon your rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

These people were supposedly elected by you to serve you, to protect your rights, to do what is best for this country. Do you see that happening? If not, what have you done about it? That is the whole intent of this paper, to show you how little you care. If you don't care, you deserve what is happening to this country. I cannot sit by idly and let it happen though. It is just not my nature.

Finally, to end my coverage of the main body of the Constitution is Article 7. It says that the ratification of the conventions of nine states is enough to establish the document as law.

The founding fathers created a document that created a government in which the rights of the people were represented by the House of Representatives, the rights of the states were represented by members of the Senate, and the nation was protected by the executive branch. All three branches were to keep an eye on the other, so that no one branch became to powerful. The President could veto laws he thought wrong for our country. Laws could not go into effect unless passed by both houses of Congress, one representing the wishes of the people, the other representing the states. Then as a final check and balance the Supreme Court could rule on a law as in violation of the Constitution itself.

This system of government would function properly if the citizens kept informed, remained active in the process of selecting representatives, and removing them from office if they did not uphold the Constitution. All that has changed. The 17th Amendment took away the states rights, people got lazy and don't actively participate in the political process. Look what it has gotten us.

That concludes my discussion of the Constitution itself. Now I will go into the Bill of Rights, the first amendments that guarantee you certain unalienable rights. You will then begin to see how, slowly but surely, your rights are being taken from you.

Downfall Pt 12

Part 12

The First Amendment is the first amendment to the Constitution, of which the first ten are called the Bill of Rights. It one of the most exploited and misunderstood of all the Amendments. The text of the Amendment is plain and simple, it states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first part of the Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free speech thereof..."
There is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that explains this portion of the Amendment far better than I could ever hope to. He states,

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."

In regards to religion this quote means that if you restrict a persons right to freely practice their religious beliefs you are infringing upon their freedom of speech. This entire separation of church and state issue has been misinterpreted by everyone all the way up to the Supreme Court. Cases like the ones being fought by Michael Newdow to remove any reference to the word God from our lives and public places are ridiculous. The first amendment was written so that government cannot impose religious beliefs upon you.
James Madison further states,

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

What the writers of the Constitution wanted was for us to be free to practice our religious beliefs but they did not want government imposed religion that was the cause of bloodshed for centuries as was the case in Europe.
Anyone who restricts a persons ability to practice their religious beliefs openly also infringes upon their right to freedom of speech, and that is also a violation of the same Amendment that is being used to restrict religion in the first place. You can't have it both ways!

Thomas Jefferson once said,
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights."

Patrick Henry states something that needs to be read by those who wish to remove all references to God from our lives. He said,


"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here"

Therefore, our country and our laws were built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and for that reason those rights are guaranteed in the First Amendments. Any decisions made by any U.S. Court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, that restrict the 'free exercise thereof' is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

I do not like a good percentage of the shows on television. They promote sexual promiscuity and immoral behavior. I am told to change the channel if I don't like what I see on the television. That same principle goes for those who chose not to worship God, they can just ignore what is being said in reference to Him. If they are too thin skinned to allow a reference to God bother them, they have other issues that need to be dealt with.

The final portion of the First Amendment says,
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That means that people can gather together and discuss publicly topics of concern, and also the right to confront their elected officials with grievances. That does not mean that if they do not like something that has happened they can riot in the streets. The riots after the Rodney King incident was a fine example of what is not considered a peaceable demonstration. Neither are the riots the follow major sporting events when a favorite team loses. That is pure lawlessness and should not be tolerated.

Finally the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is something that I have tried to do on numerous occasions. I have written my Congressman and Senators, and even the President. Most of the time I am ignored. Since President Bush has been in office I have yet to receive one single reply from his office. President Clinton wrote me twice and I disagreed with on every issue. So how are the people to redress their government when the government will not listen to their concerns. Illegal immigration is a fine example of this. A clear majority of the people are not happy with the Senates Resolution or the Presidents plan to solve this problem, yet they do nothing to change their plan to satisfy the desires of those for whom they represent.

The only further means of redress we have available is at the voting booth, unless you consider more drastic measures which I will cover in a later section. This is one area that clearly shows that the government is not concerned with our views on the issues. They make talk a good talk when they are running for office, but they ignore our concerns on certain issues once elected. This is where our apathy plays into their hands. If we sit back and allow them to remain in office after a good portion of the country disagrees with their actions, just like the title of this paper says, it is our own damn fault!

That concludes my talk on the First Amendment.

Downfall Pt 13

Part 13

The 2nd Amendment is only 27 words, and those 27 words have been argued over as much, if not more, than the entire 1rst Amendment. The 2nd Amendment states,
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Legal experts from both sides of the gun control issue have argued this Amendment, and it's intent for many years. Some argue that the right of the citizens to 'keep and bear arms' only applies to the fact that at one time we had a militia and the citizens needed to keep arms to be ready to serve the militia. We apparently no longer have a militia, although I think we ought to, but since we don't that argument could be considered valid.

If you want to agree with that viewpoint than this quote by James Madison is applicable,

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

Note however that he says, "...body of the people, trained in arms..." That leads me to believe that a militia should be composed of average citizens who are trained in the use of arms. Who is to provide the training if people do not grow up using firearms? There are no schools that teach you the proper use and safety concerns having to do with firearms.

When I was younger every summer I signed up for a Hunters Safety class sponsored by the National Rifle Association. They taught you the proper safety techniques for handling of firearms. They taught you how to aim and fire a firearm properly. I don't see those classes offered any more. Why not? Firearms are a part of our heritage and the proper use of them should be taught. Maybe they would be more respected by our youth if they grew up knowing how to use them properly.

Then there is the argument that the 2nd Amendment is a two part Amendment that authorizes a militia to be maintained, and also allows for the citizenry to keep their own arms.

There is an excellent article written about the militia and the 2nd Amendment. If you are seriously interested in learning more about this issue I suggest you go to the following link and read this article by Dr. Edwin Vieira. It is well worth your time.

here

The founding fathers, those who wrote the Constitution, included the right to keep and bear arms for specific reasons. It was not only for the maintaining of a militia ready to defend the states and the union. They also wanted to people to be able to stand up against an overbearing government should the need arise.

Daniel Webster once said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it"

How are an unarmed people going to guard and defend liberty? Only an armed citizenry can defend something. Just like an unarmed citizen cannot protect and defend his home and personal property from criminals an unarmed citizen cannot defend his liberty from any number of threats.

If you don't believe that is the reason for keeping arms, pay heed to what Thomas Jefferson said,

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Noah Webster also said,

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

James Madison said,

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

James Madison also said,

"A government that does not trust it's law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust."

Proof enough for you that our founding fathers did not intend the 2nd Amendments' right to 'keep and bear arms' only for the maintenance of a militia?

Now people might say that times have changed, we live in a more violent and crime ridden society than our founding fathers did. I will not disagree with that, for it is true. The cure for that does not like in taking away the arms of peaceful, law abiding citizens.

Samuel Adams said,

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

So if we have a problem with crime we need to solve it by other means than by disarming the public. How is an unarmed public to defend themselves? We need to toughen our laws concerning crime, make the penalties harsher, the jail time more severe for those convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime. No cable television in prison, no free education. Make prison a place where people do not want to go to and they will think twice before doing something that will send them there.

So you can see that arms are a vital part of the rights guaranteed us in the 2nd Amendment. Any law passed to restrict our right to privately owned firearms is unconstitutional.
Our first President, George Washington once stated that,

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

That statement goes against the entire stigma that is common in today's society in which firearms are shunned and frowned upon. Groups that say firearms are bad, that guns kill go against the thinking of our founding fathers and are a threat to our national security, the safety of our homes and families and our own liberty from a tyrannical government.

I leave you with two more quotes by our founding fathers.


Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.-Andrew Fletcher



"Divine providence has given to every individual the means of self defense...To disarm the people....is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-George Mason

So it is up to you to choose. Do you wish to be free men, holding on to your Constitutional rights and your liberty, or do you want to be slaves?

Downfall Pt 14

Part 14
Next in my coverage of the Bill of Rights is the third Amendment. It states,
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It was written because that was one of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence, the British were housing their soldiers in homes of the colonists and the founding fathers did not want to repeat that offense. It is plain and to the point.
The next, the 4th Amendment deserves more attention, it states,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their homes, and their property is to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. I will give more instances later, but does the Patriot Act sound like it conforms to the 4th Amendment? Does NSA spying upon your phone calls sound like it upholds the 4th Amendment? The government has stepped way outside its authority on this amendment numerous times. It uses its power to squelch those who try to educate the public to the truth of what is going on. It is just another of your rights that have been trampled upon, and you could be next if you don't wake up to what is going on.
I would like for you to visit this webpage and read the story of a man who was subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. Then you can begin to see the type of police state we are becoming when we allow things like this to happen.

here

The 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments deal with legal rights. I would just like to quickly comment on these. They are all of extreme importance because they protect us from wrongful prosecution and guarantee us a fair and impartial trial. We should pay close attention to any kind of detention centers were people are held on the grounds of being subversive or possible terrorists simply because they state their minds regarding the actions of our government. The Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom of speech, and as long as we are not threatening the government we are within our rights to speak out against the outrages they perpetuate in the name of government.

If you wish to read them in full the text for them are listed below.
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The last two Amendments to the Bill of Rights are the 9th and 10th Amendments.

They pertain to states rights. The text for them is as follows.
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X

The 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.

They basically say that the mention in the Constitution of certain rights should in no way restrict those enjoyed by the people and that the powers not specifically mentioned for the government in the Constitution belong to the states.
So the Constitution protects our rights as citizens and gives sovereign authority to the states on all matters or to the people themselves.
There is a great article on this topic here

I suggest you read it to understand the difference in authority given to the federal government and reserved for the states.

That concludes my discussion of the Bill of Rights. I suggest you pay attention to these 10 Amendments, for if things don't change they will only be part of a history lesson your grandchildren are taught in school.

Downfall Pt 15

As I have done through this entire piece, I would now like to continue with some quotes by our founding fathers. I will post a quote and then give my thoughts on each one. You can take my comments with a grain of salt, but at least think about what our founding fathers said.

"It is when people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains"
-Patrick Henry

Our country has forgotten God. We have allowed our government to restrict the free practice of religion to the point that God has been hidden away in our closets. The whole time our government has been plotting to take away the rest of our freedoms as well.

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering but if we neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how soon a catastrophe may overcome us, and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
-Daniel Webster

Again, our country was founded upon Christian beliefs. To deny or do away with those beliefs will bring about the downfall of us as a nation.

"All men having power ought to be mistrusted"
-James Madison

No need to comment on this one.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. "

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "
-James Madison

Think about this and our war on terror, the Patriot Act and all the Homeland Security plans.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. "
-James Madison

Try reading any of the legislation passed by our Congress and you will get the point.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

I am not promoting revolution but I am curious as to whether there any patriots left in this country who would be willing to stand up and die for what they believe in?

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
-Thomas Jefferson

As I said earlier, our government has taken God out of our lives and this states that it is our right to worship as we deem proper and right.

"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth."

"The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated."

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
-Thomas Jefferson

So what does that tell you about the Federal Reserve Bank, and our nations federal deficit and our own personal debts?


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."

"Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin was a wise man.

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.
-George Washington

I wonder if that is why I have always been somewhat of a loner?


The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
-George Washington

That goes back to what the Declaration of Independence said, that "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable..." Why do we tolerate abuses at the hands of people we elect to serve us?

Finally a quote by Mark Twain.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-Mark Twain

That only shows the nature and character of men, that they are afraid to stand up for what is right until they are among a crowd and their cowardice can be hidden.

Downfall Pt 16

Part 16

By now you probably think I am a conspiracy nut, a believer in nonexistent threats to our country. Maybe, maybe not. I would like to present you with some documented information that might cause you to join me here in conspiracy land.

First off I have already gone over our Constitution, and the importance it plays in how we are governed. President Bush took an oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution did he not? How does he feel about the Constitution?
I would like for you to read the following verbal exchange that took place in the oval office. It took place when GOP leaders told Bush that his push to renew some provisions of the Patriot Act would alienate conservatives.

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

What does that tell you about someone who swore an oath to uphold the document he calls a goddamned piece of paper? The entire article covering this story can be found
here

How come we never heard anything at all about this outrage on the network news? You will find out why in a few minutes if you continue reading.

Next up is the United Nations. For one thing, the United Nations are not part of our government. We the people did not elect them to pass laws that affect our lives. Therefore under our form of government, any resolutions they pass that go against our Constitution are not legal since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, (except according to George W. Bush), and therefore non-binding.

George Washington made a statement once that I think bears great importance when considering our ties to the U.N. He said,

"It is our true policy to steer clear of any permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

Now I want you to read a quote by former President George Bush.

"...pledged his allegiance to the communist UN and a world government in 1992, when he said to the communist UN General Assembly: " "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."?

As I stated just a moment ago, we did not vote for the U.N. members so why then did former President Bush pledge our allegiance to them? Who's interests was he protecting when he said that?

So do we bother with the U.N. Let's take a look at some of the goals of the U.N. The U.N. has established 8 goals that they call the Millennium Goals. This information was taken directly off the U.N. webpage. You can go here to read it for yourself if you don't trust me.

The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.

The goals are as follows,
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
This is what Kofi Annan said about these goals.

"We will have time to reach the Millennium Development Goals – worldwide and in most, or even all, individual countries – but only if we break with business as usual.
We cannot win overnight. Success will require sustained action across the entire decade between now and the deadline. It takes time to train the teachers, nurses and engineers; to build the roads, schools and hospitals; to grow the small and large businesses able to create the jobs and income needed. So we must start now. And we must more than double global development assistance over the next few years. Nothing less will help to achieve
the Goals."
United Nations Secretary-General
Kofi A. Annan

They all sound good on the surface, I mean who doesn't want to eradicate diseases like AIDS, or eradicate poverty and hunger? It is numbers 7 and 8 that have me worried though.

On the information page for number 7 it states, "Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources "

What exactly is sustainable development? The U.N. calls their plan for sustainable development Agenda 21 The following is the goal of Agenda 21, the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.

"Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment."

You can read more about this plan here

Our country and its resources are ours to govern. We do not need the U.N. to rule over and tell us how to manage it.
Next is item 8, developing a global partnership for development. How do they plan to do that? Here are two of their recommendations.
Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory, includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction— nationally and internationally

Address the least developed countries' special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction

Pay particular attention to the second paragraph. They suggest tariff and quota free access for the export of poorer countries. They recommend debt relief for poorer countries and more generous development assistance. We already donate a large amount of money in foreign aid. The following numbers are how much, in millions, we donated since 2002.

2002........... 12,900
2003............15,791
2004............19,705
2005............27,457

That is a lot of money, yet the U.N. wants us to contribute more, while at the same time cancel all their debts to us. These are all poor countries, many of which have very high anti American sentiments. If they would change their opinion of us I might begin showing some sympathy towards them. However, as long as they harbor anti American sentiments they can go to Russia or France for assistance. We have enough poor and illegal immigrants to support. You don't see us with our hands out to the world asking for financial aid.

So in my opinion, the U.N. is doing nothing to help the people of this country. Therefore I recommend that you contact your elected officials to urge them to severe our ties with this organization and kick them off U.S. soil.

Next up is the Presidents favorite phrase, compassionate conservative.
This quote was taken directly from the Communitarian webpage, which can be found
at .http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/communitarian_update_n36.html

George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative"; Bill Clinton was a "New Democrat." Both accept government as an important sponsor of social welfare benefits. Both also target benefit programs to avoid ever larger government and higher taxes; seek to minimize incentives that might discourage work, marriage, and self-reliance; and try to promote personal choice in the selection of service providers. Does this signal a new middle consensus for domestic policy making?

The Communitarians have a belief that individual freedoms have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of society as a whole.
The following is a brief overview of Communitarian philosophy,

"The communitarian solution is the ultimate synthesis in the 1812 Hegelian dialectic.[1] Hegel posed that conflicts between opposites naturally leads mankind into embracing a form of philosophical, fascist perfection. The 1848 Communist Manifesto expanded the Hegelian philosophy into dialectical materialism. The Marxist's natural conflict between the haves and the have-nots justifies riots and assassinations. It was modified in 1884 to include covert, seditious activities. This is the Marxist's "ends justify the means" theory. Hegels' and Marx's ideas were the theoretical basis for Stalin's Soviet-Russian police state and Hitler's National Socialism; both practiced eugenics against "lesser peoples."

So if the President follows this philosophy we could be on the road to a Fascist state in this country. Are you alarmed yet? Read on.

Next on my list of topics is the CFR. What is the CFR? The CFR is the Counsel on Foreign Relations. The CFR has a goal for the future of the United States. They want to merge the U.S, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union run by a common government. Their goal would obliterate all rights we as Americans have under the Constitution.

The Council on Foreign Relations report outlining their plan cannot be copied in whole or in part due to copyright laws but you can read it here:

There is a very good article covering it
here:

You may have heard the term New World Order. That is the goal of the CFR. The following quote might alarm you when you think about their plans for a New World Order.
"In Defense of the World Order ... U.S. Soldiers would have to kill and die"
– Aurthur Schlesinger Jr., July / August '95 Foreign Affairs, CFR's flagship publication"

Former Congressman John R. Rarick warned about the CFR:


The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.

Who are some of the past and present members of this anti-American operation? Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Alan Greenspan, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Richard B. Myers, Henry Hyde, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Sandra Day O'Connor, George Soros, Christopher Dodd, Diane Feinstein, Gerald Ford, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Katherine Harris, Teresa Heinz, Antonia Hernandez – President of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Gen. John P. Jumper – current Air Force chief of staff, Joseph Lieberman, John McCain, Rupert Murdock, David Rockefeller, Diane Sawyer and Tony Snow.
If you want to find out how long these people have influence politics in this country I suggest you go here and look at the lists.
You might wonder why the news never talks about this organization and it's purpose. Here is a list of members of the news media who are members of the CFR.
Television
ABC NBC CBS
Barbara Walters Brian Williams Katie Couric
Diane Sawyer Andrea Mitchell Dan Rather
Lynn Sherr Tom Brokaw Lesley Stahl

CNN FOX PBS
Paula Zahn Tony Snow Jim Lehrer
Garrick Utley Morton Kondracke Margaret G. Warner

Newspapers

New York Times
Ethan Bronner – deputy foreign editor
Barbara Crossette – former UN bureau chief
Bernard Gwertzman – foreign affairs
Joseph Lelyveld – former executive editor
David E. Sanger – White House correspondent

Washington Post
Anne E. Applebaum – columnist
Pamela Constable – deputy foreign editor; former Kabul Bureau Chief
Karen J. DeYoung – associate editor
George F. Will – columnist
Robin Wright – correspondent

Wall Street Journal
Marcus Brauchli – global news editor
John C. Bussey – deputy managing editor
Daniel Henninger – deputy editor of the editorial page
Carol Giacomo – diplomatic correspondent for Reuters News Agency
Pranay Gupte – business columnist for The New York Sun

Magazines
Newsweek
Jonathan Alter – senior editor and columnist
Christopher S. Dickey – Paris bureau chief
Nisid Hajari – managing editor of Newsweek International
Michael Hirsh – senior editor
Marcus Mabry – a senior editor
Jane Bryant Quinn – contributing editor
Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek International and ABC
Time, Inc.
Hedley Donovan – former editor-in-chief
Joel Dreyfuss – senior editor of Fortune magazine
Marguerite Michaels – Midwest bureau chief
Norman Pearlstine – current editor-in-chief
Others
Jodie T. Allen – managing editor of U.S. News & World Report
William L. Allen – former editor-in-chief for National Geographic
David A. Andelman – Executive Editor of Forbes.com
William F. Buckley, Jr. - National Review
Andrew L. Shapiro – The Nation magazine
R. Emmett Tyrrell - American Spectator
Katrina vanden Heuvel – editor of The Nation
Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report

Board of Directors of the Corporate Media
Walt Disney (Disney, ABC, ESPN)
(Sen.) George J. Mitchell, Chairman of the Board
John E. Bryson
John S. Chen
Monica C. Lozano
Viacom
Ellen V. Futter
Frederic V. Salerno
News Corporation (Fox News)
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO
*Viet Dinh
John L. Thornton
Time Warner (CNN, Time, Warner Brothers, etc.)
Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and CEO
Jessica P. Einhorn
Frank J. Caufield
Carla A. Hills
CBS (Viacom and CBS separated in Jan. 2006)
Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
William S. “Bill” Cohen
New York Times Co. (New York Times, Boston Globe)
Henry B. Schacht
Donald M. Stewart
Gannett Co. (USA Today)
*Louis D. Boccardi
James A. Johnson
Donna Shalala

So now you see that the news media does not want you to know about the CFR because for the most part they are all members of it. Makes you wonder how truthful our news really is, doesn't it? The news media is not going to spill the secrets concerning an organization which a good portion of them belong to. They also would not be ready to broadcast stories that might alert the public to what their intentions are. So we are being deprived of news that we have a right to know about. That is why earlier I asked if you researched for information on your own. You surely aren't getting the whole truth from the news media, and therefore it is up to you to seek it out.


Next I would like to address the Trilateral Commission, another group you probably have never heard of. Read what Barry Goldwater had to say about them,

The Trilateral Commission is another little known entity that is diligently and methodically working to destroy the sovereignty of this nation and put the United States under foreign rule – it is the twin monster of the CFR. Barry Goldwater was one of the lone voices decades ago trying to warn the American people about this operation. He said of the Trilateral Commission:

The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.



If you want to learn more about the Trilateral Commission you can do so at:
here:

If you want to know who are members of this anti-American group you can look here:



So that is a brief overview of some of the inside goings on of this country. Have I shown you anything that might make you interested in learning more? If so my last segment will be full of links for articles you can read for more information. In the meantime I would like to tell you a story. This was told to me by a co-worker the other day while we were discussing politics.

He said that at one time he worked for some walnut farmers and they were attending a union meeting which had as a guest a U.S. Congressman. He would not give me the name but he said the Congressman gave a speech about how they support the framers, blah, blah blah. After the meeting my co-worker walked up to the Congressman and asked him bluntly who is running the show in this country. The Congressman asked what he meant. My co worker said who is running our country, is it the President or is it the CFR or Tri lateral Commission. My co worker said at that instant the Congressmans eyes literally bulged and he stood there a moment speechless. Then he slowly shook his head to the affirmative and said that no one would believe my co worker if he told anyone. They would think him a conspiracy nut or something.

So, if you think it is still all conspiracy theory material, then I guess there is nothing else I can do to convince you. I have a friend who recently told me he does not buy into the gloom and doom theories. I respect him still but am saddened by the fact he is not willing to look at the facts with an open mind. I have done about all I can do to convince you. It is up to you to take the first step and research the information I have given you further. You can then decide for yourself if I am worth listening to or a nut.

I would like to leave you with one final quote by Thomas Jefferson and then I am done. He said,

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all?

That concludes my attempt to inform you of things going on and to do away with your apathy and lack of concern. Hopefully something I have said will have made you sit back and say ‘What the hell?” If so my time will have been well spent.