By The People

There are fundamental flaws in how American government operates today,
contrary to the Constitution and the vision of a representative republican form of governance.
I intend doing something about it: by educating and informing others who
are not even aware of the dangers.

Monday, March 28, 2011

We Don't Need No Stinking Birth Certificate!

In his own words, Barack Hussein Obama admits that he is NOT an American citizen and that he was born in Kenya. Is there more proof really needed? It is apparent within the first 30 seconds of this video, that he admits that he was Kenyan born and not born in Hawaii.

From the Canada Free Press
Obama’s ineligibility and Republican eunuchs
By Lawrence Sellin Friday, April 15, 2011

It is difficult to imagine a more obvious scam and a more pliable group of suckers.

Of course, Republicans have always known that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be President.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have spent so much time in the hallways of power and in TV studios; they now mistake cowardice for statesmanship. The love for their lifestyle has outgrown their respect for the oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Stink-a-roos on the Obama eligibility front
By Judi McLeod Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama’s 2012 campaign swung into high gear yesterday with blazing guns all aimed at killing off the eligibility debate.

Within one 24-hour period, there was Bill O’Reilly slamming those who question Obama eligibility on Fox News; Glenn Beck conspicuously off Fox and on radio shouting a loud demand for citizens to “stop with the damn birth certificate…stop”.

Neither boob-tube celebrity seemed the least rattled for appearing to be unleashed in the Shut Down the Eligibility Argument at about the same time as Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, was being treated to a Susan Boyle Britain’s Got Talent type love-in by Piers Morgan over at CNN.

Please pass this along to every American you know, and maybe, just maybe people will start to see the truth about Barack Obama and the lies being told about him and his eligibility to hold this nation's highest elected office.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011



[pruh-tek-ter-it] –noun
1.the relation of a strong state toward a weaker state or territory that it protects  and partly controls.
2.a state or territory so protected.
3.the office or position, or the term of office, of a protector.
4.the government of a protector.
5. English History . the period (1653–59) during which Oliver and Richard Cromwell held the title of Lord Protector, sometimes extended to include the period of the restoration of the Rump Parliament (1659–60).
When the colonies that formed the united States of America declared independence from British rule, the idea they designed was really based on the concepts of a protectorate, with limited powers of authority over the many sovereign and independent states of the union. And it was not until The Constitution of the United States was signed and ratified that the definitions of the limited powers of the federal government "protectorate" were made known to all.

The limitations and reinforcements of those limitations were clearly defined without ambiguity, else there would not have been a unanimous ratification of the Constitution. Those restrictions were necessary to each state to allow them to govern as necessary for the businesses and general public of those individual states.

The purpose of the commerce clause itself was unambiguous, as it was meant to prevent one state from imposing tariffs or fees on the products of another state, and not for Congress to regulate businesses.

The word "democracy" is not found in any of the founding documents and with just cause. It was the founder's foresight that omitted "mob rule" from the nation's laws, separating powers so the people and the states each had a balance of representation in the federal government. The legislation of laws was thereby left up to the individual states, under the Constitution's reservation of power to the federal government in regards to protection of borders and national defense, and also to create and regulate a currency that could not be controlled by any bank or foreign interests.

What we presently call a monetary system, based on the illegal passage of the Federal Reserve Act, is in itself a usurpation of Constitutional law, and a shirking of responsibility and duty of the Congress of the United States of America.

The elections in November, 2010 demonstrated the awakening of American patriotism, the likes of which has not been seen since the Revolution. While many Republican candidates won offices and regained a majority control over the House of Representatives, it was be no means an endorsement of the GOP party, but rather a shot across the bow of the political ship of Washington bureaucracy.

Many of these new members of the House and Senate are listening, but many others remain entrenched in party politics. The 2012 elections will make 2010 look like the "dry run" that it was, in restoring Constitutional integrity to this nation that we love.

We cannot abolish every law that is unconstitutional at once, however we can begin to dismantle those usurpations as is required to reestablish a monetary system that incorporates asset-backed currency, limits Congress to a budget that restores fiscal responsibility, and gives back the sovereign rights to the individual states and the people respectively.

In an article I read from Canadian Free Press JR Dieckmann articulates quite well what and how to accomplish the restoration of this nation. It may take decades to do what took decades to destroy, but it not only is possible and necessary, it is the duty of every true American patriot to perform.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Medical Marijuana Under Legislative Attack

In these tough economic times, it would seem that finding ways of generating revenue would be the primary concern of Oregon's legislatures. But no, they are once again thumping to make the access of of medical marijuana more restrictive and prohibitive. In addition, the bills proposed will take away the Oregon Medical Authority's ability to add or remove conditions that are deemed by medical professionals to be treated by marijuana and instead, make it a legislative decision.

Whether or not you feel that marijuana is a viable alternative to other dangerous but legal drugs, it is a matter of rights once again being taken from citizens. I call on all Oregonians to write to their representatives and stop this nonsense. These new restrictions will cause much pain an suffering to patients that depend on the use of marijuana, as prescription drugs have proven to be less than effective for their prescribed treatments.

Once again, lawmakers seem that they not only know what is best for the people, they now feel they know better than the doctors that prescribe medical marijuana to their patients.

From the Salem-News website:

Rep. Mike Schauffler, a Democrat from Happy Valley, Oregon showed his disregard for Oregon doctors when he said, “I support medical marijuana for people suffering, but it has been wildly abused. There are doctors who hand out hundreds of cards to people who don’t need them.”
The Representative was not just implying, but stated directly that he believes doctors are willing to put their careers and reputations on the line to lie about a patient’s conditions.
The insult was heard loud and clear by nearly 4,000 Oregon doctors whom have signed applications for patients, the 50,000 patients and caregivers, and the millions of Oregon voters who passed the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.

We are quickly sinking into a state of restrictions instead of a state of liberty. 

Friday, March 11, 2011

Massive Quake Strikes Japan

While there are many issues to be discussed and debated, I feel compelled to send blessings and condolences to the thousands of victims in Japan and the other countries that will be hit by the tsunami from these quakes.

I invite others to comment and tell their stories about how this is affecting their own lives and their communities.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

What is the Law?

On the 12th of March, 1812, the state of Virginia became the 13th and final state to ratify the 13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The text of that amendment is:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

 But the Constitution as we know it today has a completely different 13th Amendment. The text of which is:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.  

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So which is the correct one? It seems to me that if we are to trust the records of the Senate and the House as they were written at the time(s), the second version would have become the 16th or 17th, since the 13th as indicated in the previous version above was ratified more than 50 years prior.

This brings up two relevant issues regarding both the Constitution of the United States and the judicial powers and responsibilities of the Supreme Court of the United States. The first being that according to the document itself, and to the powers and responsibility of the Supreme Court, the Constitution is THE law of the land and the Supreme Court's duty is to test cases based on their constitutionality. 

Was there anything that changed to invalidate this? Was there a legislative act passed by both houses of Congress to nullify the Constitution and grant the Supreme Court the powers of "the law of the land?" If that is the case, then I want to know where I find the law(s) that supersede and nullify the Constitution. Perhaps I have been living under a false assumption all of my life, but then so are all other American citizens who believe they live in a representative federal republic. Many think we live in a democracy.