Archive for April, 2011
Chinese criticism of the Federal Reserve for flooding the world with money may get little traction among Group of 20 finance chiefs meeting in China as Europe’s debt crisis and Japan’s disaster take precedence. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan and European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet will gather in Nanjing for a one-day seminar on the international monetary system tomorrow. A Chinese state economist called for an end to the dollar’s dominance in a paper posted on a website yesterday, blaming the U.S. for fueling inflation. – Bloomberg
Dominant Social Theme: Things are bad all over. With so much going on in the world, it’s time for everybody to pull together and come up with a global solution. The world is inter-dependent after all. It is because we say it is.
Free-Market Analysis: The outlines of the drive toward a global currency are becoming clearer in our view. We’re continually surprised by how fast events are moving and how orchestrated they seem if you follow them closely. We’ve already reported on the International Monetary Funds’ efforts at placing SDRs front-and-center as a workable global currency. Then recently we covered George Soros‘ drive to set up a new Bretton Woods-style international conference to agitate for one-world money. And now the G20 is making positive noises, as we can see from this article excerpted above. You can see two previous articles on this topic here:
The Nanjing conference is just an appetizer, apparently, with additional monetary work to be done at yet another upcoming meeting. Here’s how Bloomberg puts it: “German Deputy Finance Minister Joerg Asmussen said the event isn’t intended to deliver short-term fixes and is part of preparing for a G-20 meeting in Cannes in November that should yield more substantive results.”
These folks sure get around. Several alternative news sites have suggested that the G20 is more or less a floating world government in everything-but-name. Maybe so. We figure the meetings are so common because none of the participants wish to put anything on paper or send each other emails. Any negotiations on such sensitive issues are discussed face-to-face in a clean room without listening devices or recordings. That seems to be the way it works. They get together a lot.
It’s a little funny watching this to remember the gravity of the G7. Those long ago conferences took place infrequently and always garnered headlines. It was somewhat astonishing to see world leaders in the same place at the same time. Each meeting was commemorated with a grainy black and white photo that appeared in the newspapers of all the world leaders posing stiffly together so you could compare heights and smiles.
But today – heck it’s old hat. World leaders – presidents, even – seem to get together more often than business-people planning the launch of a new product (and perhaps that’s what they’re doing). It’s not just the G20 either. European leaders are always meeting together in Brussels. There are telephones and computers but that doesn’t seem to matter. Only face-to-face meetings will do. The paranoia seems obvious.
The UN, by no means an unimportant entity, seems to be serving a different function; it’s doing the non-economic (world-shaping, military stuff) while G20 leaders keep “discussing” money matters. The division of labor is clear-cut. One has to speculate of course because nothing is explained; communiques are issued; goals are established but the behind-the-scenes discussions are the important ones. You only hear about those after the fact when leaders announce yet another “understanding.” (And apparently they better “understand” or they won’t be leaders for long.)
It really is amazing. People think this is simply the way of the world. But we bet between the EU, the UN and the G20, Nikolas Sarkozy alone has been on the road more than he’s been in France. He may be President of a big EU country, but he’s surely not a sitting one. He never seems to sit. He’s got more appointments than a vacuum cleaner salesman.
But maybe such strenuous efforts are paying off. The G20, which has seemed fairly hostile to Western leadership when it comes to monetary matters seems suddenly less so. Actually, the Bloomberg article contains one of the more incredible statements we’ve read for a while: “Criticism of U.S. monetary policy is ‘so yesterday,’ said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi UFJ in New York. ‘World leaders and monetary officials have a lot more important things on their plate.’”
This puts us in mind mostly of Bill Clinton who, when his sex scandal with Monika Lewinsky was at its height, kept holding news conferences in which he or his allies would suggest that the scandal was old news and that it was time “to move on.” (No, it wasn’t.) Political events mesh with economic ones. Now we can see. As we have suggested with such deliberate elite promotions, one merely needs to wait and eventually the pieces fall into place. Between the wars in the Middle East, the European chaos and the Japanese earthquake and ongoing European crises, there is simply no more time or appetite for confrontation – or so we now learn.
Of course it’s not exactly clear how a world currency would have alleviated an earthquake, but that’s not really the point. Urgency is in the air. And out of such an urgent, chaotic environment one can expect the G20 to make progress in creating a “new order.” Questions could be asked, but there is no one, really, to ask. News is communicated via communiques. Thus we learn that this one-day seminar will focus in part on forward-looking monetary issues. Officials such as French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde will discuss, “shortcomings in the international monetary system and volatile capital flows.”
We figure that’s news-speak for “one world currency.” Sure enough, Bloomberg tell us in virtually the next paragraph that Goldman-Sach’s Jim O’Neill expects “possible changes to the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights to be discussed.” Why is that important? Bloomberg again: “In 2009, Zhou suggested in a policy paper that SDRs may be the basis for a new global currency.”
The article natters on momentarily about sales of French railroads, trains and planes but then suddenly returns to the currency issue: “[The] event also reflects the French leader’s desire to organize a new ‘Bretton Woods’ during his presidency of the G-20 to address what he has called imbalances in the global monetary system. He first raised the possibility of such a meeting in August and pressed the Chinese to act as hosts.”
That’s interesting. We thought George Soros was organizing a new Bretton Woods. Now it appears that Sarkozy is trying to do one on his own. It must be something in the water. Actually, it’s an elite global promotion. That’s how these things seem to work. The Anglo-American power elite, a handful of wealthy, intergenerational banking families operating out of the “City of London” has long since (maybe several generations ago) decided that the world needs a single currency. What’s going on now is almost surely the aftermath.
Most recent developments? First the IMF produces a White Paper on how its SDRs could be turned into a global currency over the next decade or two. Then international financier George Soros suddenly organizes his own Bretton Woods conference to discuss a new global money – one that just so happens to include the IMF’s SDRs. Now the G20 is beginning to discuss the same thing and lo and behold Nikolas Sarkozy wants his own Bretton Woods conference. Great minds think alike.
It’s difficult to explain this to your friends and neighbors isn’t it? Try letting them know that a silent, brutal money power has developed a script from which the most powerful men in the world are reading assigned lines. Explain, if you will, that the outcome has been determined decades in advance, that the scripts have been frozen into place years ago and that the entire world-currency “discussion” is nothing more than an elaborate Shadow Play. Go ahead. Good luck!
Still … we’re fortunate to have the Internet because the patterns are increasingly obvious. One can see the coverage evolving in a way that was impossible when only print and TV coverage was available. Just the ability to read several articles at once from different time periods (something you would have had to spend a huge amount of time in a library to accomplish even a few decades ago) clarifies the manipulation and makes the orchestration obvious – to us anyway.
Conclusion: These are likely power-elite dominant social themes, not coincidences. Money power creates chaos and provides One-World solutions. The over-riding question for the 21st century then is whether people, as they notice such evident truths (and we believe they are), will continue to put up with having their lives so managed. We don’t know. Do you?
EDITOR’S NOTE: There are very few organizations that are seriously dedicated to our cause – the Constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. So, when we connected with Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers (OK) to participate as both speaker and sponsor on our Nullify Now! tour, it was a natural fit.
Like the Tenth Amendment Center, Oath Keepers has been getting plenty of attention in the media – and probably even more. The mainstream doesn’t like an organization that calls upon its members to refuse compliance with unconstitutional acts. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) considers Stewart himself to be a dangerous patriot. Rachel Maddow considers us to be racist, neo-confederates.
Obviously, the mainstream doesn’t like what what we’re doing. But we’re going to keep doing it anyway. And while the pressure keeps rising from the mainstream media, it becomes essential for us to find ways to work together and support each other as much as possible. In that spirit, I strongly encourage you to read the following personal message from Stewart Rhodes….and I hope that you’ll do what you can to support his important new projects. Together, we can push back against the establishment and work for more liberty in your lifetime.
OPERATION SLEEPING GIANT
by Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers
Tenthers, it is an honor to be part of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullify Now! Tour. The mission of Oath Keepers (www.oathkeepers.org) fits hand in glove with your mission. We urge active duty military and police to remember that their oath is to the Constitution, not to whoever happens to be “the decider” in the White House (of whatever party). And that oath to defend the Constitution requires that they defend the separation of powers between the federal government and the states, and defend the powers reserved to the states and to the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. It is no accident that within our Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/) we vow to refuse orders to enter into a state with force, for any reason, unless, and until, invited in by that state’s legislature, or by the governor if the legislature cannot be convened, as required by Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution (known as the “Republican Government” clause). Nor will we obey orders to subjugate a state that asserts its sovereignty and nullifies unconstitutional federal laws, or orders to impose “martial law” on the American people (a power nowhere granted, or even mentioned, in our Constitution). We are proud to call ourselves Jeffersonians, and we have pledged our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor in defense of the timeless principles of liberty enshrined in our Unanimous Declaration of Independence. We are honored to work with all of you in any way we can in the fight for liberty.
However corrupt and power hungry the oath breakers in Mordor on the Potomac become, they are truly powerless if the military and police simply stand down. Is that possible? Yes, it certainly is! That’s exactly what happened in East Germany in 1989, where the commanding General of the Army refused the Communist Party’s orders to crush peaceful mass protests. Without the support of the Army, the hated Stasi secret police were overwhelmed by the people and the Communist Party was DONE. Two days later, the Berlin Wall fell. You can watch an interview with a former East German Colonel (who is now a Texas Oath Keeper) who was there when the wall fell, here.
Likewise, in Romania in 1989, the military refused orders to fire on their own people and ten days after the uprising began, the brutal communist dictator Ceaușescu was dead. And we just saw a similar stand-down in Tunisia, with that dictator, Ben Ali, also forced to flee after the Tunisian military refused his murderous orders. I spoke of that example at the recent Phoenix ‘Nullify Now!” event. You can watch that speech here:
If the armed forces of communist and third world dictatorships can finally wake up and do the right thing, then so can our military, so long as we don’t forsake them. The corrupt domestic enemies of our Constitution want you to believe that the military and police all belong to them. Don’t accept that. Deny them their “muscle” by helping us reach each and every man and woman in uniform with the message of liberty. Let’s send the elites the message that “all your bases are belong to us!” We already know, from our interview with Sgt. Joshua May of the Utah National Guard, that some troops did refuse to participate in gun confiscation during Hurricane Katrina:
We just need to create more Sgt. Mays. By and large, the military has the honor and courage, they just need the knowledge of what is the right path.
I invite you to join us, and take part in our efforts. Even if you are not prior service, you can join as an associate member. We have many dedicated citizens within Oath Keepers who have never served in the military, police, or emergency services but are very active in reaching out the current serving with our vital message.
NEW OUTREACH TO VETERANS: OPERATION SLEEPING GIANT
The second part of our mission is to remind veterans that their oath does not expire until they do, and to keep it they must vote only for oath keeping statesmen, such as Congressman Ron Paul or his counterparts in the state legislatures. To vote for an oath breaker, is to become an oath breaker. We also urge them to defend the powers reserved to the states and to the people by supporting state sovereignty resolutions and nullification of unconstitutional laws.
Veterans must take the lead in revitalizing the core institutions of a free people in sovereign states. That is now all the more urgent because the Federal Reserve created fiat money system is destined to collapse, and when it does, the power elites intend to force upon us a world-wide version of the “Fed” along with ‘world governance.” We need strong communities in strong states that can weather the coming storm and reject the “final solution” of the global elites, and instead choose independence and liberty.
That is why we have started Operation Sleeping Giant (www.operationsleepinggiant.com) to wake the veterans up! That effort urges them to focus on:
1. Food and fuel independence and security (as individuals, within local veterans organization chapters, mutual aid societies, co-ops, farmers markets, and at the town, county and state levels).
2. Physical security and Independence, again as individuals, neighborhoods, towns, counties and states, to include forming neighborhood watches, a volunteer sheriff’s posse, and county militias established by county ordinances but staffed by self-supplied and self-funded volunteers (like in a volunteer fire department), and ultimately, a true state militia capable of “repelling invasions.”
3. Economic security and independence, as individuals and communities, including barter networks, use of silver and gold as real money, and sound money bills at the county and state levels. We must have an alternative to the fiat money system in place when it collapses.
4. State sovereignty and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and actions. We encourage peaceful withdrawal of consent and support, and the application of the doctrine of interposition by states, in defense of the rights of their citizens.
Please go to www.operationsleepinggiant.com to learn more.
Click here to sign up for our free email alert list!
Please join our organization if you can, make a donation if you are able, or at least help us spread the message of liberty to the current serving and veterans by forwarding this message to any and all you know and feel free to repost our banner. I am encouraging all Oath Keepers to join the Tenth Amendment Center and to help you in your vital mission. Together, we can do it!
For Liberty and the Constitution,
Founder of Oath Keepers
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter
Our meetings will now be twice a month. On the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at the Orange County Archery in Fountain Valley. Click here for more information on our Meetings / Events page.
Norman Rockwell- Jury Room (a.k.a. The Holdout)
(originally published on LewRockwell.com)
Citizens in our (once) free republic founded under the English common law system, have both the power and the right to vote according to conscience when they sit on a jury and can vote not guilty even in the face of the law and in the face of the evidence. The defendant also has a right to expect that his jury will be fully informed of their rightful power to vote “not guilty” if they believe justice requires it, regardless of the evidence. Anything less is not a real jury trial.
The jury issues no opinion, gives no explanation of its decision. It simply renders its verdict, and if the verdict is “not guilty,” that acquittal cannot be questioned or overturned by any court. It is telling that a conviction can be overturned, but an acquittal cannot – the deck is stacked on the side of the liberty of the individual on trial. While a judge can overturn a jury conviction that in his judgment is unsupported by the evidence, or where the jury harbors prejudicial animus toward the defendant, the judge cannot overturn an acquittal even if the evidence is overwhelming – even if the defendant admits on the stand that he did the actions of which he is accused.
A landmark case in jury history is that of William Penn, the Quaker preacher who would later found Pennsylvania. He was put on trial in England for the “crime” of preaching a non-government approved religion on a public street corner. He did not deny that he had preached as a Quaker. He proudly proclaimed it. There was no doubt that English law at the time considered his actions criminal. That too was plain. And yet, the jury acquitted him in spite of the obvious, undisputed facts, and in the face of the clear law. That jury was initially held in contempt and jailed by the trial judge, but on appeal, the English appellate courts ruled that the jury has an absolute power to acquit despite the facts and in the face of the law, and that it cannot be punished for exercising its power. That acquittal helped to establish the free practice of religion.
The same was true in the celebrated Zenger trial in the American colonies, where Zenger, a newspaper editor, did not deny he had published an editorial severely criticizing the royal governor. The facts were undisputed. Under English law at the time, mere criticism of government officials, even if true, was still considered libel, and could be punished. And yet, despite both the law and the facts being abundantly clear, the jury acquitted Zenger. That acquittal helped establish legal protection for freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, such that only knowingly false statements can be considered libel.
The Fugitive Slave laws criminalized the underground railroad. Abolitionists accused of helping runaway slaves were often set free by sympathetic jurors voting according to conscience, nullifying the law.
One way to think of the jury is that it is effectively a fourth branch of government, sovereign in its own realm. Separation of powers requires that its powers and immunities remain inviolate. In this sense, the jury has as much a power to set even a “guilty” man free as a governor using the power of clemency, or as a President using his “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. That power is also absolute, except in cases of impeachment.
It’s telling that modern power elites don’t scream and yell about governors and Presidents having such an absolute power to set even a clearly “guilty” man free. When fellow elites within government do it, it is accepted. But when the people, as a jury, do precisely the same thing, elites gnash their teeth and shrilly warn of impending chaos and anarchy (as if that were a bad thing!), crying crocodile tears about all the supposed injustice that will result if the jury does something similar to what governors and presidents do at will.
The plain fact is our entire legal system was originally designed to favor liberty, with discretion built in at every level, from the beat cop, to the prosecutor (who has a responsibility to see that justice is done, and that sometimes means not prosecuting even in a clear case), to the jury, to the judges who can overturn an unjust conviction (such as by ruling the law to be unconstitutional as applied), to the governor and/or President who can overturn even a “just” conviction and set a certifiably guilty man free. As Hamilton stated in Federalist 74, in reference to the power of Pardon:
“The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”
Just so. And as it is with the power of pardon, so it is with the power of the jury.
The scales of justice are meant to be tipped on the side of liberty, with “easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt” built in at each step.
Another way of looking at the jury is that it is much like the militia, since it too is a vital public institution where the people directly participate by being their own guardians. A people who are their own guardians in the militia cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty a usurping tyrant may be. Likewise, a people who are their own judges of guilt, their own judges of the law as applied to that case, and their own guardians of the liberty of their fellows by serving on a jury, cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty the minions of the usurping state may be. When a jury is aware of its power, they can stop the state cold, however much it lusts for convictions.
That absolute power to nullify has always been the jury’s power – it is, in fact, the very core of what a jury does. When I (Stewart) was a student at Yale Law School, my procedure professor, Owen Fiss, openly acknowledged that a jury is not merely a fact finder. He pointed out that if that were all a jury were for, we could have professional fact finding juries, made up of forensic experts, handwriting analysis experts, voice analysis experts, etc. who would be far more “efficient” fact finders, working together on one case after another.
Though Professor Fiss, being an elitist liberal, didn’t trust juries and instead considered judges “the “embodiment of public reason” (I know, I know, amazing that someone so brilliant can be so blind), he was at least honest enough to admit that the jury is there to serve as a populist, peoples’ check on government power. It didn’t make sense any other way. What Professor Fiss could not see is that the virtue of the jury is precisely the fact that it does not come from some elite segment of society out of touch with the “unwashed masses.” It is made up of average people who will never sit together again on the same jury. They come together only once, to do justice and then to depart. The jury is not a repeat player in the system, like judges, lawyers, and hired-gun expert witnesses. It cannot be influenced by special interests, it has no institutional turf to defend, no reason to go along to get along with backroom deals, and no desire to rack up a conviction record to further political ambitions.
And the real purpose of that unique, independent assembly of average people is to stand in between an accused and the mighty state, as the last shield against tyranny short of recourse to arms. And like David standing in front of Goliath, it does not matter how powerful the state is, however air-tight its case, however artfully it has stacked the laws against the accused, however unconstitutional its manipulations, however blood-thirsty its prosecutors, or however complicit its judges. However much the state wants to strip the life, liberty, or property from the lone defendant, it can still be stopped by that one jury. Just a handful of citizens, if they know their true power, can grind the machine to a halt, and stop it cold, at least in that one case … if they but know of their own power.
And therein lies the problem. Though that absolute power to acquit is part and parcel of traditional trial by jury – is in fact inseparable from it – judges, prosecutors and the power elite have always resented this fact and have tried to suppress it. In effect, there has long been a power struggle between the people, seeking to preserve their rights and powers, and established state power seeking to usurp the power of the people and to enhance its own power. Despite the clear, well settled power of the jury to acquit, willful judges have cleverly argued that while the jury has the absolute power to acquit, they don’t have a right to (so say the crafty judges) and so judges are not required to tell the jury of the power it clearly has. But they don’t just omit that information, they actively mislead the jury by telling them the opposite – that they must convict if they find such and such facts to have been proven, that they must follow the law as the judge explains it, and that they may only consider the evidence presented to them. In other words, the judges, and the prosecutors, lie to the juries.
First, during jury selection (voir dire) the jurors are grilled by the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, and are often asked very intrusive personal questions. Seeking the lowest common denominator, prosecutors and judges eliminate intelligent, aware people, who are routinely eliminated via “pre-emptive strikes” which require no explanation, or “for cause.”
And, an increasingly common question is something like: Do you believe that the jury can judge the law? Have you heard of jury nullification? Can you agree to set aside your own convictions and follow the law, and convict the defendant if the evidence proves guilt? If you wish to avoid jury duty, an answer to the effect that Yes, you do understand your right to vote your conscience, will get you sent home. But, if instead, you wish to be seated, what should you do? First, say as little as possible. Do not volunteer information.
So, if the judge asks you if you can apply the law as he explains it, say “Yes.” You may believe the judge when he says “this is what the law is” (though judges will disagree on points of law) but no one can force you to convict against your conscience and better judgment. Certainly you can follow the judge’s instructions, so you are not lying by saying “yes” when asked that question, but you also know the well established truth that you can also acquit even in the face of the law as given by the judge, and in spite of the facts. You can just keep that knowledge to yourself without volunteering it.
Some may call this taking a “mental reservation” as in, Question: “Can you follow my instructions on the law?” Answer: “Yes” – but with a mental reservation (to yourself) of: I may believe your description of the statute law, but the higher law is the Constitution, if there is a conflict.
Others see it as simply retaining the knowledge of the fact that a jury can acquit even in the face of the judge’s instructions – which is well settled law. No acquittal can be overturned, even if the jury didn’t follow the law. The statute law may be as the judge describes it, but the judge has no power to dictate a verdict of “guilty” to the jury. If the judge requires an “oath” of the jurors which requires them to follow the law as given by the judge and to convict if the facts are proven, that oath is a false oath and is not enforceable.
As the Penn trial established hundreds of years ago, jurors may not be punished for their verdict. An attempt to punish a Colorado juror (Laura Kriho) with contempt of court for not being forthright during jury selection questioning (voir dire) ended when she was released by an appeals court ruling.
However, what has occasionally happened is that seated jurors have been dismissed for refusing to discuss a possibility of finding the defendant guilty, taking a clear jury nullification stance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in 1997, that if you insist that you will acquit regardless of the evidence, you can be removed for being “incapable” of being impartial. However, if you express “reasonable doubt” about the evidence, or the credibility of the witnesses and informants, or the credibility of the police, in addition to questioning whether the law itself is unjust, the judge cannot remove you from the jury, because they can’t prove that you were determined to acquit regardless of the evidence. You might also suspect that evidence favorable to the defense has been withheld from the jury.
Jurors should be aware that if an acquittal is not possible, a hung jury is an acceptable outcome if a juror believes it necessary to prevent a conviction that would be unjust. A series of hung juries sends a signal to the legislature and to prosecutors that a significant portion of the population does not support that law. A mistake jurors sometimes make is to throw the prosecution a bone by convicting the defendant on a “lesser charge.” (Prosecutors often multiply charges on the hope that something will stick, and to encourage a plea bargain.) That can cost the defendant years in prison if the judge so decides at sentencing. If justice requires it, nothing short of an acquittal or hung jury on all counts is appropriate. It can take intestinal fortitude to stand alone but a single juror can hang the jury.
The power of the jury to vote according to conscience and judge the merits, fairness, constitutionality and applicability of the law itself, is the only real, undiluted power the individual citizens have in our system of government. If we are engaged in a struggle for our fundamental rights against governments on all levels, and we are, then we must view our role as partisan guerrillas, and we have a powerful yet peaceful tool at our disposal. It has been hidden from us, and we are intimidated into thinking it is not our right, but if we will summon the courage to grasp it, we can use jury veto power, or jury nullification, as a weapon in defense of liberty.
Frankly, when awake and aware lovers of liberty choose not to serve on a jury, they are leaving the battlefield with Goliath still standing, jeering at them as they walk away. By not serving, they are denying to themselves one of the critical “boxes of freedom” and a chance to sling one right between Leviathan’s eyes. If they don’t take that shot, what is left? Not much. The ballot box is a joke, the soap box, while still there, is also under relentless attack, with mainstream media now nothing more than Mordor’s mouthpiece. Why give up the jury box to the enemy? You know what comes next.
Serving on a jury should be viewed as a form of liberty guerrilla warfare in the current “soft” or cold war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyranny. We’d better use it while we can before the war goes hot. Besides, It’s good practice. We need to exercise our liberty muscles and our own cunning and resolve in the face of adversity. Step into the ring!
We must close with the enemy and battle him in every arena, including in the courtroom. Give Leviathan no safe place, no place to let down his guard, and instead take the fight straight to him in a place where he thought he was supreme and could not be defeated. One juror, just one, can shut down all the gears, all the levers, and all the apparatus of unjust power, and make it stop. One juror can throw a critical monkey-wrench into the works. And if enough jurors do that, the cursed machine will be prevented from working at all. Just you, a lone liberty guerrilla, in a peaceful, bloodless, mini-revolution of conscience, can drive a dagger into the soft underbelly of the beast and set someone free. Talk about focus of effort! There can be no better time spent in the struggle to directly stop oppression.
April 25, 2011
Don Doig [send him mail] is a co-founder and vice president of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Stewart Rhodes [send him mail] is an Army Airborne veteran, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, a 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, and is the founder and president of Oath Keepers.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
NOTE FROM STEWART:
Sincere thanks go out to Don Doig, Founder of FIJA, for inviting me to co-author this article, and to Lew Rockwell, of LewRockwell.com for publishing it at his site. The jury is a critical institution. It is as fundamentally critical to liberty as is the militia, and as is our right to bear arms. As the saying goes, we have “four boxes of liberty”: the soap box (freedom of speech and assembly), the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. We must guard each of them with equal resolve and jealousy, for they truly are our great shields against tyranny.
Denial of the ancient right of jury trial was one of the causes of our Revolution, as was clearly stated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, written July 4, 1776 (commonly known as the Declaration of Independence), where the Founders condemned the King “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury” and for claiming the power “to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws” (courts of admiralty). Jury trial was an ancient right of Englishmen, considered by our Founders to be a non-negotiable right of the colonists, for which they were willing to fight and die.
And yet, even now it is under relentless assault, both by willful judges and prosecutors who deny the full right and power of the jury, as discussed in our article, and and also by willful Presidents who illicitly claim the power to strip Americans of this fundamental right by designating us “unlawful combatants.” First Lincoln, then FDR, and now Bush and Obama have claimed the power to apply the international laws of war to American citizens, precisely as if we were foreign enemies in wartime, and try us by military tribunal rather than by jury in a civilian, Article III court. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Our forefathers fought a bloody Revolution against such outrageous claims of power, and yet here we are, facing the same claim of power to subject us to a jurisdiction FOREIGN to our Constitution – the international laws of war. And under this doctrine, Obama also claims the power to simply assassinate us, if he thinks it necessary for “national security.”
We must stand like a rock and refuse to give even a shred of legitimacy to any such outrageous claims of power, regardless of which party is in the White House. And if the political and legal elites persist in this claim of power, we must resist it with as much fire and defiance as our Forefathers. The right to jury trial is our last shield of liberty, and our last resort short of an appeal to arms and to the God of hosts. Remember that, and act accordingly. – Stewart Rhodes
Dollar Replacement Beat Goes On … and On
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 – by Staff Report
Expert: U.S. should ‘give up on the dollar’ – The push to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency has been gaining steam, with one expert arguing that America “must give up on the dollar.” In a Financial Times op-ed, Michael Pettis, a finance professor at Peking University, said U.S. policymakers should lead the charge to create a more diverse reserve system, “in which the dollar is simply first among equals.” The dollar has been the dominant reserve currency for decades, with central banks and other institutions around the world amassing vast reserves. Pettis argues that this has resulted in dangerous trade imbalances that threaten to destabilize the global economy. – CNN
Dominant Social Theme: Get rid of the dollar and all will be well. An “expert” says so.
Free-Market Analysis: This article from CNN comments on an editorial that just appeared in the Financial Times, which like the Economist magazine, tends to enunciate the positions of the Anglo-American power elite. It confirms our suspicions once again that Western elites have in mind swapping out the dollar, and maybe sooner rather than later. The idea of course is that if Western elites can create something closer to a one-world currency, global government itself becomes a considerably more realistic proposition.
The ramifications of course are profound. But there is no way to accomplish such a move without launching a huge promotional effort. This seems to us just what is going on. The larger populations especially of the West must get used to the idea of a new currency and thus, almost every day (or week) we hear of a new initiative aimed at weakening or otherwise “broadening” the dollar reserve system and eventually replacing it.
George Soros just hosted a dollar-replacement summit that he called a new “Bretton Woods.” It didn’ t really make headlines but it wasn’t supposed to. Its existence was the big story, and it got loads of ink leading up to the letdown of the summit itself. The International Monetary Fund has taken to issuing white papers explaining how its SDRs can be turned into a true world currency complete with a real bond market. The BRICS, as we reported yesterday, are meeting regularly to create their own currency swaps that exclude the dollar. And now, in upcoming meetings the G20 (meeting again!) are to take up the issue of the dollar’s shaky footing.
We find the whole thing increasingly contrived, as we have stated before. The dollar in our view was purposefully destabilized by the US Federal Reserve and by the Bush administration via serial wars, aggressively low interest rates and Bush’s strange habit of endlessly refusing to veto expansive legislation. Anyone who studies the Bush presidency can see a trend leading the US economy into economic oblivion.
Now why would the President of the United States want to do such a thing? Well, if your family has elite connections going back generations (as the Bush family does) and if Western elites want to create a global government, they need to move the world from a series of disparate currencies to just one – and in order to do that, the dollar reserve itself must be undermined.
Of course, those involved aren’t simply going to come out one day and announce that the new world order demands a new currency and therefore policies have been put in place to undermine the dollar (and perhaps the euro as well, new as it is).
No, it will be done, as so much is these days, furtively. The dollar will be destabilized softly, over an extended period of time along with America’s national sovereignty. And in order to acclimate people to what is happening, various groups and editorialists will continually comment on upcoming changes. It is quite possible to categorize this recent FT editorial as one such desensitizing gambit.
In his editorial, Pettis (an economics professor in Peking of all places) rolls through the whole rusty paradigm of dollar replacement. Of course that’s just the point. Promotions don’t seek to be original. They’re supposed to be repetitive – that is how dominant social themes morph into memes. Thus Pettis repeats for the umpteenth time that “countries such as China have been able to ‘game the system’ by stockpiling dollars, which has allowed them to grab a larger share of global demand for goods and services.”
He points out predictably (and incorrectly), that money instability has reduced currency availability within the United States and thus jobs (that’s not true) and flowed to “red hot” job markets in developing economies elsewhere in the world. The United States, he writes, then has to make a Hobbesian choice between printing more money (adding to the deficit) and “stimulating” the economy or opting for a more fiscally conservative approach that will leave unemployment consistently high.
Never mind that we hear over and over again that the US job situation is improving (it likely is not). The dollar reserve system actually collapsed in 2008 and had to be revived by an incomprehensible injection of some US$20 to US$50 trillion in loans and other sorts of dollar funding schemes – not just in the US but also around the world.
While the dollar system was propped up for a time, it is probably beyond salvage. The job situation in the US is terrible (not because of currency flows as Pettis argues) because the whole economic system is so distorted that it is impossible to tell a healthy company from an unhealthy one. Businesses don’t want to hire and people are yet reluctant to spend.
Even if this situation changes, economic health will not improve much because central banks around the world will then have to raise rates and otherwise “sterilize” the world’s economy of its massive dollar overhang. Rates go up and economic vigor, what there is of it, begins to recede. This can go on for years.
Pettis also runs through the usual options when it comes to the dollar’s replacement. He examines the euro, before discarding the idea and then takes a look at the International Monetary Fund’s SDRs. In fact, we have come to believe that Western elites dearly wish to replace the dollar with some sort of SDR derivative. Here’s some more from the CNN commentary:
The global monetary system and the dollar will be discussed this weekend as finance officials from the Group of 20 economies gather in Washington for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The dollar found some support Friday as investors turned cautious ahead of possible policy changes stemming from this weekend’s summit. “Today’s risk will come from sideline comments from the G20 and IMF meetings as well as the deluge of U.S. data,” said Camilla Sutton, chief currency strategist at Scotia Capital. Investors are also focused on the outlook for global interest rates, as central banks adjust to rising inflation.
We wrote yesterday about the orchestration of world events when it comes to the BRICS, and how orchestrated this economic “threat” seems. We argued, hypothetically anyway, that the Western elites are still calling the shots and we would argue the same thing regarding the “dollar crisis.” The BRICS are working on their own version of a dollar replacement, one that’s perhaps gold-backed and the IMF is elaborating on SDRs.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that at some point an additional crisis can be manufactured for the express purpose of pressuring the two sides to sit down at the table together and merge their approaches into one single currency. We don’t know if the euro will be involved, or if perhaps the euro will be used to trigger a larger currency crisis but every time another article or white paper comes out on the issue, our suspicions are raised.
Conclusion: The IMF has been especially thorough with recent reports while cautioning that a replacement for the dollar is perhaps decades away. We used to believe that ourselves but these days we tend to believe the opposite of what elite institutions say. If the IMF is presenting the SDR as an alternative to the dollar “reluctantly,” then its institutional stance is more likely an eager one. And if such changes can only occur tectonically over decades than we would tend speculate that they are more likely only years or even months away.
This article is also posted here at oathkeepers.org
April 19, 2011
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.
– Concord Hymn, Ralph Waldo Emerson
Today we honor the memory of the “embattled farmers” who stood in defiance at Lexington and Concord and then beat the hell out of the British Regulars all the way back to Boston on April 19, 1775. Two years ago, today, we Oath Keepers were privileged to be invited by the Committees of Safety to join them in their rally at Lexington Green, and, following in the footsteps of our forefathers, we stood right there on the hallowed battle ground at Lexington, roughly on the same line where the American militia stood so long ago, and defied a British officer’s orders to throw down their arms.
And on that ground, on that day in 2009, we renewed our oaths to defend the Constitution, just as Americans had done back in 1798, during an earlier time of crisis and turmoil, when they felt compelled to renew their commitment to their common bond – their oath. It is difficult to put into words what that felt like. It was a truly humbling and soul stirring experience. We were very fortunate to have some amazing speakers join us there on very short notice, including Sheriff Richard Mack, LCDR Guy Cunningham (the author of the 1994 Combat Arms Survey at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base), and my good friend, David R. Gillie. And we were privileged to meet some great patriots, such as “The Patriot Pastor” Garrett Lear (who would later become our official chaplain), and Montana State Representative, Joel Boniek (author of the Made in Montana gun law), among others. Along with other wonderful speakers, we heard a stellar address by Dr. Edwin Vieira, read by Tom Moor. You may view some of those speeches here.
Today, on Patriots Day, is a good day for us all to reflect on where we came from, what others have sacrificed so that we may be free, and to reflect on our own solemn responsibilities to see to it that their sacrifices were not in vain, and that the light of liberty is not snuffed out on our watch. We have big shoes to fill. I will tell you of just two men who, on that fateful day so long ago, set an example for the rest of us veterans to follow, when it comes to keeping our oaths with full commitment. Let their example burn in your hearts.
Isaac Davis: Yea, Though I Walk Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death
Perhaps you know the name of Isaac Davis, the militia captain and gunsmith who fell in the first volley at Concord Bridge, leaving behind a wife and four ill children. But did you know that Davis was convinced that he would die if it came to a fight because a few days before the battle a large owl, a symbol of death, had flown into his home and perched on his favorite gun? And yet, as his wife recalled, “the alarm was given early in the morning, and my husband lost no time in making ready to go to Concord with his company … My husband said but little that morning. He seemed serious and thoughtful, but never seemed to hesitate. He only said ‘take good care of the children,’ and was soon out of sight.” Those were his last words to his wife. However, despite his premonition of death, when Davis was asked if he was afraid to march down into Concord to defend the town, he replied “No, I am not and I haven’t a man that is!”
Samuel Whittemore: A Dangerous Old Man Goes to War One Last Time
The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness. – Robert A. Heinlein
When eighty-year old farmer Samuel Whittemore, a veteran of the French Indian War, saw the approaching Regulars on April 19, 1775, he left his plow and, to the astonishment of his family, strapped on his prized dueling pistols and a captured French sword, grabbed his musket, and stepped out to make war one last time. Whittemore ambushed the column at close range, firing first with his musket, and then drawing his dueling pistols. He fired a total of five shots, killing three regulars and wounding another before being overrun. He then drew his sword and attacked. He was shot in the face at close range and bayoneted thirteen times and left for dead. When his grieving family came to collect his body, they were amazed to find him still alive and attempting to reload his musket for a parting shot at the now distant column.
Whittemore said he fought because he wanted his children to live without being subject to a distant King. Some have questioned his tactics, but never his resolve. Perhaps he felt he was just too old to “run and gun” with the others and chose to make his shots count, at close range. Or, perhaps, at the ripe old age of eighty, he had decided “today is a good day to die.” Despite his grievous wounds, he survived and lived another eighteen years, dying of natural causes at the age of ninety-eight.
At Bunker (Breed’s) Hill, another “dangerous old man” was overheard saying a prayer before the Regulars made their first charge. Was the old man asking God to keep him safe in the coming battle? No. He was down on his knees thanking God for preserving him long enough so that he could fight that day. That is the spirit of a free man who understands the big picture – that none of us gets out of here alive, and what counts most is whether we leave our children free.
Do We Still Have it In Us?
Some say we modern Americans have lost our hardness, our fire, and are not the men our forefathers were. They say we are no longer willing to pay the price of freedom Heinlein spoke of and will go out with a whimper rather than a bang in the face of tyranny. Such critics are making the same mistake our enemies have made throughout our history – confusing the American love of peace, prosperity, and our respect for the rule of law, with weakness.
Parliament and the British Officer Corps made that mistake back in 1775, convinced that the colonists were “cowardly and would never fight the Crown.” Major General Alured Clarke famously declared “that with a thousand British grenadiers he would undertake to go from one end of American to the other and geld all the males, partly by force and partly with a little coaxing.”
General Hugh Percy shared that opinion – until he experienced the wrath of the Americans swarming around him on his retreat from Concord. Afterward, he wrote wrote to General Harvey, in England:
“… during the whole affair the Rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance and resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so.
Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as Rangers against the Indians and Canadians and this country being much covered with wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting. . . . “
Likewise, the Imperial Japanese Army and the Nazis thought the 1940’s generation of Americans was soft and weak, only to find themselves very much mistaken when young Americans by the droves stepped up, within days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and said “I’m your huckleberry!” (you can read one such story here). Simply because we love life and the blessings of prosperity does not mean we will not fight, and fight hard.
Yes, We Can!
Some think we no longer have it in us because we have put up with so much that presumably the Founding Generation would not have tolerated. But remember, for two full decades before Lexington and Concord the colonists tried to peaceably reconcile their disagreements with Parliament, protesting, petitioning, and filing court cases. As our Declaration says, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” The Founding Generation exhausted all peaceful means of redress – they tried to work within the system. 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 that is precisely what they did, when Parliament finally attempted to disarm them.
Today, we too are striving to preserve our rights by peaceful means, despite a “long train of abuses.” But that should not be mistaken for weakness or a lack of resolve. Just as the Founding Generation contained combat veterans who had learned much in the way of irregular warfare from their Indian foes, we too have among us tens of thousands of combat vets who have learned similar lessons and “who know very well what they are about.” Though many are aging, they are still most assuredly dangerous old men who should not be taken lightly.
This April 19, remember your heritage, and remember your own worth and measure. And remind yourself of what really matters most – that your children inherit a free country. And while we must work for peaceful remedy as long as we can, as Thomas Paine said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” And Liberty!
Founder of Oath Keepers
By Publius Huldah.
In response to a recent article in the National Review by Allen C. Guelzo, a nullification denier and history professor at Gettysburg College, and two responding letters to the Editor,1 one “Celticreeler” posted an astute rebuttal you can read here.
The issue in the National Review article and letters is this: Guelzo denies that States have any right to nullify unconstitutional laws made by Congress. He looks at Art. VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution (the “supremacy clause”) which reads,
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… [emphasis added]
and concludes that any law made by Congress is the “supreme” law of the land; and everyone must obey, unless & until five (5) judges on the supreme Court say they don’t have to. He claims that only judges have authority to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.
In her rebuttal, Celticreeler correctly points out that the phrase, “in Pursuance thereof”, “limit[s] the federal government’s supremacy to laws that were made pursuant to the Constitution…”
She also reprints Guelzo’s reply to her letter to the Editor. And what he says in his reply is so at odds with the words of our Framers, that I am compelled to respond.
We will look at four Founding Principles which Guelzo rejects and reverses.
1. What does “In Pursuance thereof” Really Mean?
Guelzo says in his reply,
“In pursuance thereof ” was intended only to recognize that, at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, no body of legislation had yet been made under the Constitution…
What? He presents no proof – though he does throw in the factoid that “The supremacy clause was written by an anti-Federalist, Luther Martin, whom we might presume to have entertained a few anxieties about an overmighty federal government”.
Actually, Luther Martin said the clause he proposed was “very materially different from the [supremacy clause] clause adopted by the Constitution” 2; but I will not quibble.
In any event, it is The Federalist Papers which are authoritative as to the genuine meaning of the Constitution 3 – not speeches of delegates to the Federal Convention (thou they can shed light). And this is what The Federalist Papers say about Art. VI, clause 2, and “in Pursuance thereof”:
In Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [capitals are Hamilton's]
In the next para, Hamilton says that a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,
…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution…. [boldface mine]
In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton says:
…the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS… [capitals are Hamilton's; other emphasis mine]
And in Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:
…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]
Do you see? Federalist No. 33, 27, & 78 are clear: Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the Constitution are “void” – they are “mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such”. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have “supremacy” over nothing. 4
2. Who is Supposed to Look to the U.S. Constitution for Permission: The Federal Government, the Member States, or the People?
Guelzo says (in his reply):
If the Founders had wanted to grant nullifying power-to the states or any other body-they would have had more than sufficient opportunity to include it in the Constitution. [boldface added]
Guelzo thus asserts that the States [i.e., the Members of the Federation] don’t have any powers unless “the Founders” said they could have them and wrote it into The Constitution! He demands that the States look to the Constitution to see what they are permitted to do! According to Guelzo, if the Constitution doesn’t give States permission, they can’t do it.
Guelzo has it backwards – our Founding Documents refute his words. The second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence says that Rights come from God and to secure these rights, 5
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -
So, governments have only those powers “the governed” permit them to have! In our Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE, acting through our Representative States, decided what powers WE would delegate to the federal government.
Accordingly, WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government when WE, acting through our States, ordained & established the Constitution for the United States of America. In the Constitution, WE itemized the powers WE granted to each branch of the federal government. No Branch of the federal government may lawfully do ANYTHING unless WE authorized it in the Constitution. WE are the Creators; those in the federal government, are merely our “creatures”. In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Hamilton calls the federal government our “creature”; and points out that it is up to THE PEOPLE to smackdown the federal government when it “overpass[es] the just bounds of its authority and make[s] a tyrannical use of its powers”. 6
In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), Hamilton says,
…the State governments …clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not… EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation …of State sovereignty would only exist in three cases… [caps are Hamilton's, boldface mine]
The Tenth Amendment says,
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. [emphasis added]
Do you see? Guelzo reverses & perverts the whole point of Our Declaration of Independence, Our Revolution, & Our Constitution.
It is each of the three branches of the federal government (Legislative, Executive, & Judicial) who must look to the Constitution to see what powers WE THE PEOPLE, acting through our States, allowed them to have. All other powers are reserved to The States or The People.
3. Who Has Authority to Nullify Unconstitutional Laws Made by Congress?
Guelzo says, respecting the power to nullify a law made by Congress,
…That determination lies in the hands of the courts, under the principle of judicial review laid down in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819…
McCulloch v. Maryland? In McCulloch v. Maryland, the supreme Court decided [wrongly] that Congress has power under various of the enumerated powers listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, and the “necessary & proper clause” (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause) to incorporate a national bank. That case is not about “judicial review”.
And in the Constitution, WE did not delegate EXCLUSIVE authority to federal judges to nullify unconstitutional laws! Furthermore, the Oaths of Office at Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, impose on all who take them an obligation to uphold the Constitution against usurpations by the federal government. Thus, nullification is both a Power retained by the States & The People as well as an Obligation imposed by Oath.
And REMEMBER! Our Rights pre-date & pre-exist The Constitution. Thus, nullification of usurped powers is a natural right – it is the remedy against insupportable oppression by the federal government. 7
4. In Our American System, WE Do Not Take Oaths To Obey Persons, Institutions, Or Judges.
I have proved elsewhere that nullification of unconstitutional laws, executive orders, supreme Court opinions and treaties is required by the Constitutional Oaths of office. That Oath requires that all who take it swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution. In our American system, we do not take Oaths to obey persons, institutions, or courts. Here are two papers explaining the legal & moral imperatives of nullification: Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress: Instructions from Hamilton, Madison, & Jefferson and The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges 8
Guelzo’s Statist Vision.
Guelzo’s vision is this: Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] is “supreme”; and the Member States & WE THE PEOPLE must obey, unless & until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] say the law is unconstitutional. In other words, Guelzo holds that only the federal government may question the federal government.
His words are poison. Under his vision, the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. It is an evil ideology. And, as I have proved herein, it is antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. 9 PH
1 Celticreeler states that Guelzo’s original article appeared in the February 21, 2011 issue of National Review. In response, she submitted a letter to the Editor, and Guelzo replied. Celticreeler reprints Guelzo’s reply in her linked rebuttal. Guelzo’s original article is available to subscribers only.
2 You can read Martin’s actual comments (March 19, 1788) here: Luther Martin’s Reply to the Landholder.1
3 The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them (through their States) to ratify it. For this reason, The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of the Constitution. And at a meeting attended by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825, the following resolution selecting texts for the Law school was passed:
…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83) [emphasis added]
Someone! Show Professor Guelzo the on-line edition of The Federalist Papers so he can learn the genuine meaning of the Constitution! Salvage the minds of the young people who the administration of Gettysburg College places in Guelzo’s care.
4 Using The Federalist Papers as Proof, I explain the “Supremacy Clause” here: The Arizona Illegal Alien Law & The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Exclusive & Concurrent Jurisdiction Explained. Guelzo mentions “preemption” [it does sounds "grand, doesn't it?]; but in this paper I explain the interplay between constitutional federal & Reserved State powers.
5 It is impossible to understand The Constitution without acknowledging the Principle set forth in Our Declaration of Independence that that our Rights are granted to us by The Creator God; they thus pre-exist & pre-date The Constitution, and are unalienable by man. WE do not look to The Constitution for our Rights! I explain our Rights here.
6 Here are Hamilton’s actual words:
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. (Federalist No. 33, 5th para) [emphasis added]
7 In his writings on Nullification, our beloved Thomas Jefferson distinguishes between [mere] “abuses of delegated powers” and the assumption of powers “which have not been delegated”:
…in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General [federal] Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:.. [boldface added]
I.e., if Congress merely abuses a delegated power [e.g., makes silly bankruptcy laws (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4)], then the proper remedy is to vote the Representatives out of office and replace them with sensible ones who will repeal the silly bankruptcy laws.
But if Congress assumes a power which has not been delegated to it – e.g., control of the Peoples’ medical care – then each State has a natural right to nullify it within their own borders. It is outside the compact the States made with each other – the States and the People never gave their “creature” (the federal government) power over their medical care! Without Nullification, the States and the People would be under the absolute & unlimited control of the federal government.
8 Remember! We expect the lowest-ranking soldier to refuse to obey an unlawful order even when given by a commissioned officer. See “A Duty to Disobey: The Forgotten Lessons of My Lai“, by military lawyer Robert S. Rivkin. And do not forget the Nuremberg trials – defendants claimed they were “just following orders”. The Court properly rejected that defense.
Do we ask less of ourselves and our State & federal officials than we do of 18 year-old soldiers when we are confronted with unconstitutional acts of the federal government? The three branches of the federal government have connived against us – THE PEOPLE. So smack them down! Can we live up to our Framers’ expectations as set forth throughout The Federalist Papers? See also, What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power? for advice from James Madison.
9 Does Professor Guelzo understands the poisonous import of his words? Or did he uncritically accept, and does he unthinkingly recite, what he has been told? What he says is the prevailing dogma of our time – most lawyers believe it because it is what they were told in law school. Theirs’ are minds which have never been trained to think, and they are ignorant of the concept of “objective meaning”. I address the problem of inability to think and our moral & intellectual corruption here: How Progressive Education & Bad Philosophy Corrupted The People & Undermined The U.S. Constitution PH.
April 17, 2011
Oath Keepers Operation Sleeping Giant: Awakening Veterans to Get off the U.S.S. Economic Titanic and Back Onboard the U.S.S. Constitution
By Stewart Rhodes
April 17th 2011
U.S.S. Economic Titanic has already hit the economic ice-berg and is sinking. Arguing over who should be the next captain is not going to save us. Even if we replaced the entire leadership staff, by firing all of Congress, that also won’t save us. Those who have served in the infantry know the old saying “embrace the suck,” which means to accept reality and deal with it. Well, we need to dispense with false hope, accept that an economic collapse is coming, embrace the suck, and deal with it. As Patrick Henry said, it is better to know the worst, and provide for it, than to delude ourselves with false hope.
Frankly, we should be glad it is coming on our watch, so that we can clean up the mess we have allowed to happen, rather than leaving it to our children and grand-children to fix. As Thomas Paine said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” Exactly. This is our watch, so let’s get it done so our children and grand-children may have peace and freedom.
So, knowing that the ship is sinking, what do we do? Do we sit on our butts and wail and cry about what’s coming, while waiting to hit the icy water? Do we jump into life-boats and wallow around, waiting to be rescued? That’s what the globalist power elites want us to do. When the Federal Reserve created fiat money system collapses, when the ship sinks, they will then “rescue us” by sweeping us all onboard the U.N.N. Global Leviathan – their “final solution” of a world-wide version of the “Fed” (out of the IMF) along with ‘world governance.” That has been their plan all along – con us into sailing an un-seaworthy fiat hulk, sail it into an iceberg, and then “rescue” us onto their massive prison ship. You think getting rid of the Federal Reserve is tough? Just wait till you are under a world “federal reserve.”
So what do we do? Well, the U.S.S. Constitution is still sitting right there, off the stern! She’s still sea-worthy, able to weather any storm. We need to jump off of this weak, fiat imitation of a system we have been conned into sailing for nearly a hundred years, and get back onboard with our Constitution. We have neglected her. The supposed leaders have forsaken her. But we, the crew – us oath-sworn veterans, and We the People – who are the real owners – can still sail her if we but realize she is still there, just waiting for us.
Let’s patch the sails, plug any leaks, man our battle stations and get Old-Ironsides ready to give the U.N.N. Global Leviathan a royal ass kicking. And then let’s sail back into liberty waters onboard the Constitutional Republic built by the blood and sweat of our forefathers. That is the answer to the globalist’s plans. And that is exactly why Oath Keepers has launched Operation Sleeping Giant (www.operationsleepinggiant.org).
Certainly we are all in this together, whether or not we are veterans, but the veterans of this nation have a critical role to play. Each of us who served are still bound by our oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we must acknowledge that it has been because of our neglect of our duties, because of our negligence, that our nation has come to this. So, we veterans have a duty to right this wrong. We have the training and leadership experience it will take to help lead our people in resisting the dark plans of the global elites and in getting back to liberty. Together, we can defeat them and restore our Republic.
OPERATION SLEEPING GIANT
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after attacking Pearl Harbor.*
America’s veterans truly are like a sleeping giant. It is time to awaken them and fill them with a terrible resolve to defeat the domestic enemies of our Constitution and their globalist fellow travelers. If we wake the veterans up, this Republic will be saved. If we don’t, then I fear that this Republic will fall. If we can’t get the veterans to step up and do what must be done to save our Republic, then how can we expect to get the rest of our people to do what must be done?
So, let’s WAKE THEM UP so they can help us wake up the whole country and so they can take the lead in restoring this Republic and resisting the plans of the enemy.
If we reach the veterans fast and “reactivate” them, with their leadership we can get our neighborhoods, towns, counties and states squared away so we won’t be weak and desperate when the fiat money system crashes. The stronger ‘We the People’ are within our states, the less pretext there will be for “martial law” during a crisis and the less likely the current serving military and police will be to go along with it.
The more wide awake and prepared the veterans are, the more they can lead their neighbors in weathering the storm without sacrificing liberty on the alter of temporary security. Veterans can lead the people in standing up and defending the powers reserved to the states or to the people (see the 10th Amendment), resisting the liberty crushing plans of the political and financial elites who intend to use chaos as an excuse to scrap our Constitution and national sovereignty once and for all.
Time is short, and we must get the veterans to focus on:
- Food and fuel independence and security (as individuals, within local veterans organization chapters, neighborhood mutual aid societies, churches, co-ops, farmers markets, and at the town, county and state levels). As a start, follow the advice on http://www.providentliving.org/ (you don’t need to be LDS to learn from their experience in food storage and preparedness).
- Physical security and Independence, again as individuals, neighborhoods, towns, counties and states, to include forming neighborhood watches, mutual aid associations, a volunteer sheriff’s posse (staffed by volunteers under direct command of the sheriff), and county militias established by county ordinances but staffed by self-supplied and self-funded volunteers (as is done in volunteer fire departments all over this nation), and ultimately, a true state militia capable of “repelling invasions” (using the research and model bills of Dr. Edwin Vieira).
- Economic security and independence, as individuals and communities, including barter networks, use of silver and gold as real money, and sound money bills at the county and state levels (as Utah just passed). We must have an alternative to the fiat money system in place when it collapses. See www.alt-market.com for details.
- State sovereignty and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and actions. Veterans must support only sheriffs, state legislators and governors who have the guts and integrity to keep their oaths. To vote for an oath breaker, is to become an oath breaker. We must defend the powers reserved to the states and to the people by supporting state sovereignty resolutions and nullification of unconstitutional laws. See http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/. And eventually we must kick the bums out, as GOOOH recommends. See http://goooh.com/
Go to www.operationsleepinggiant.org to learn more about what we have planned and to read upcoming articles that will provide details on each of the above.
What we do now, in whatever time we have left, will be critical. We must focus on solutions, not just diagnoses of the problems. And the solution is to restore our Republic from the bottom up, strengthening our communities at the neighborhood, town, county and state levels as we go. None of us has a crystal ball. We don’t know at what point the collapse will come. But when it comes we will certainly be in a stronger position than we are now, if we start from the bottom up, rather than putting all of our focus on Washington DC, as people tend to do. Maybe we will only have time to get our neighborhoods ready. Maybe we will be fortunate enough to be squared away at the county level when the collapse comes. Or maybe we will be fortunate enough to have time to get it done all the way up to the state level. Certainly, we can work on all levels at the same time, but it is best to focus most of our energy on ourselves and our local communities, and work our way up from there. And we can do it in both the private and public sphere. We shouldn’t put all our eggs in any one basket. Let’s build up public institutions, but also while doing so, let’s take private action as individuals, family, friends, and neighbors.
Once again, we should be doing all of the above anyway, because that’s what it means to be a free people in free, sovereign states, in a constitutional republic, but it is especially crucial as we face the prospects of a coming economic collapse. Time is short, so please help us spread the message to all veterans and all Americans, and turn the tide.
Throughout our history, all of our enemies have misjudged the strength and resolve of the American people. The British Officer Corps were convinced that Americans were cowards who would not dare to fire on the Kings troops, only to have their asses handed to them by a swarm of ticked off American veterans while retreating back to Boston from Lexington and Concord. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan also misjudged our resolve, confusing our love of prosperity and peace with weakness, only to awaken a sleeping giant that kicked them in the teeth. Our enemies have always misjudged us as being too soft, too decadent, too disorganized and weak to put up much of a fight. And we have proved them wrong every time. The same holds true now, in the fight against the globalist, power-mad “elites’ who think they have us pegged, think they have it all figured out, and think we are too weak to resist their plans. It’s time to give them a lesson in American ingenuity and resolve.
Founder of Oath Keepers
* The quote from Admiral Yamamoto is in dispute, with some contending that it is apocryphal. Regardless of whether he actually said it, that statement is certainly consistent with his view of Americans and of the military capacity of the United States once awakened, after his time living and studying in America.
More about the author: Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff. Stewart previously wrote the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, and was a Yale Research Scholar.
Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. Due to time constraints, we dont moderate or pre-approve comments and cannot read each and every comment, but we will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments when we become aware of them.
America’s veterans truly are like a sleeping giant. It’s time to awaken them to the danger facing our Republic and their oath-sworn responsibilities to save it. Our Constitution hangs by a thread. If we wake the veterans up, this Republic will be saved. If we don’t, this Republic will fall. It’s as simple as that.
Let’s WAKE THEM UP so they can help us wake up, and lead, the whole country.
April 14th, 2011
The parents of a six year old girl who was subjected to an enhanced pat-down at the hands of the TSA appeared confused and disturbed in an interview on ABC News’ Good Morning America today as they called for a change in security procedures.
Selena and Dr. Todd Drexel, of Bowling Green, Ky., were thrust into the spotlight this week after a video of their daughter, Anna, being searched at New Orleans Armstrong International Airport went viral on the internet.
The couple said they allowed the video to be uploaded to Youtube in order to gauge other opinions on the incident which they feel was very wrong.
The video (below) shows the child in some distress as she is intimately probed by a stranger while her parents look on powerless.
“Initially she was just confused,” Todd Drexel said. “Afterward she broke down crying because she really didn’t understand what she had done wrong.” he added.
“I did ask for alternatives, I asked for her to be rescanned. They just refused and said they were going to do what they were going to do.” Selena Drexel said, adding that a TSA supervisor made it clear in a non verbal way that “there would be trouble” if the parents “caused a fuss” and refused to allow the pat down to be completed.
Mrs Drexel added that TSA agents did not adequately answer her questions when she asked why her daughter had been selected for a pat-down.