NOTE: This article references PDF files which require Adobe PDF reader. If you do not want to read them online or for some other reason prefer to download the file, click the right button on your mouse and select Save Link As. You can, of course, print the files if you prefer.

---

---

I find it interesting when the government gets religion. More accurately, I find it suspicious. Particularly when they speak under the banner of separation of Church and State.

I recently listened to a program on a web site called Love Guns and Freedom. Gianaluca Zanna Pastor Walt Mansfield from Ohio who exposed FEMAs use of pastors to perpetuating the Romans 13 lie.

I have run into this debate before. I debated this with a friend on a web site whom I am sure believes he is a good and devout Christian. He is absolutely convinced that the perverse interpretation delivered from the pulpit of FEMA (Which obviously violates their so-called separation of Church and State) is true and correct. That we should allow the absolute rule of His Majesty Obama and his court. By the way this is the same FEMA which violated the Constitution during the Katrina crisis and labeled the forefathers as terrorists.

I shall make a few observations first.

It is interesting that the court and his adoring serfs liken Obama to the mythical character of Robin Hood. Particularly since Robin Hood was an outlaw. What does that make Obama?

Another problem with this characterization is what Robin Hood stood for. Robin Hood lived in a era, so the myth goes, where the Normans were inflicting unjust rule over the Saxons with a leader who had usurped the power he was intrusted with. Prince John, the usurper, continually wrote “executive orders” which were in conflict with the the rule of law set forth by the rightful King of England—King Richard. King Richard was, at the time, off fighting against terrorists in the Middle East.

Indeed, the characterization of the Prince John is more apt to describe Obama.

The second observation is that those who call themselves the foederal (original spelling) government are being hypocritical. They use pieces of scripture to build their religion. This is not unusual since most “religions” do the same thing. They will feed you the lines of Jesus taking care of the poor. Yet, they ignore the scripture, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) Taking care of the poor actually goes back to the Old Testament. Taking care of widows and orphans and those who cannot take care of themselves is Christian teaching. James 1:27 tells us, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” In the Old Testament, when harvesting crops the farmers were ordered to leave a certain amount of food laying for the poor to gather. The onus was on the people to do this, not the employees of the people.

The third, and most interesting, observation in my mind is the fact that before the American War for Independence, the clergy was used to inspire the justification of their cause. The clergy was among the most educated in that era. Their opinions were highly regarded. When the war started they became the first Chaplains in the service of the United States actually participating in the battles.

One of the most wasteful uses of tax dollars is supporting those “Non-Profits” that support government positions. These “Pastors” who spew the Romans 13 nonsense actually get paid by the national government, according to some accounts.

Patrick Henry warned of this during the debates in Virginia to discuss the ratification of the Constitution. On June 9, 1788 he warned:

Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both: they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people?

ROMANS XIII

The text in question is Romans, Chapter 13 beginning with Verse 1.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Of course they completely bypass Romans 1:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In 1865, Andrew W. Young wrote The Government Class Book. This book was used extensively in schools throughout the States. Young was an educator who wrote several books on the topics of civics. In Chapter III—Laws, defined.—he wrote:

Sec.7. If, as has been said, the laws of the Creator form a perfect rule of conduct for all mankind, and ought in all cases to be obeyed, then all human law ought to agree with the divine law. If a human law is contrary to the divine law, or if it requires us to disobey the commands of God, it is not binding, and should not be obeyed.

So-called Progressives love to use the words of Thomas Paine “The atheist.” Like many religious orders use pieces of scripture—including Romans 13—to make points, so too the Progressives.

This is really the crux of the matter at hand. The use of pieces of scripture rather than taking the Bible, or other work, as a whole.

Progressives like to quote Paine as attacking “Christianity” when he really attacked “Religion.” Religious orders. He wrote Common Sense in support of the American War of Independence.

Yes, that dirty person violated Romans 13! How dare he!

Progressives do not like his message to the Quakers in the Appendix to the work:

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack, and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobbyhorse of your religion convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under him whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity—And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are desirous of supporting) do note please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

The Quakers were screaming for peace. Most notably John Dickenson of Philadelphia at the First Continental Congress. The use of arms was abhorrent to them. The Quakers may have even referred to Romans 13 in their defense—though I cannot find records to prove that.

Thomas Paine was not recommending a double-barrel shotgun shot into the air.

Another person progressives love to quote (except for his stance on the ownership of firearms) is Thomas Jefferson. The seal of the United States that he designed included his personal quote:

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

This leads to the final argument against the Romans 13 lie.

FEDERALISM

“When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, individual liberty is at stake.”—Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court, Bond v. United States (564 U.S. __ (2011))

Most children were taught even before Communist Cores schools that the foederal government is that government which resides and does business in the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court made one of its rare unanimous decisions concerning the concept of federalism in the case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States in 2011 (PDF; Alternate PDF with notations). It strengthened the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. More importantly, the short decision is a primer on what federalism actually is.

The important text of the brief 14 page decision written by Justice Kennedy starts at Section III on Page 8. It should be read by every student in the Great State of Arizona, if not the whole States United. It is more important to understand this concept than passing the immigration test. Most of the employees you put into office DO NOT understand this concept.

If you have children, you should download and print this decision. Read it with them and discuss it.

THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES THE GOVERNMENT

A final analysis takes a look into why rebellion against a tyrannical government—particularly in the United States—represents compliance with Romans 13.

The Constitution of the United States defines the government. It defines it very clearly in Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…

This does NOT mean the “Republican Party.” This is a form of government. It is NOT Democracy. There are elements of Democracy involved. Even Thomas Jefferson conceded that pure Democracy could only be exercised on the local level, i.e. county/city level.

It also defines the responsibility of those entrusted with protecting the rights of the People under the terms of that document. Article II, Section 1; Clause 8 of the Constitution requires the President to take an oath to:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “government” expanded this oath for “all others” in 5 U.S. Code §3331 specifies:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

Let us make something clear, at this point. The Constitution of the United States is not just the document that bears that title. The Constitution of a country is simply the “Law of the Land.” When the Pharaoh of Egypt said, So let it be written, so let it be done, it became part of the Constitution. The Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation are equally a part of the Constitution.

Those people we hire at election time are our employees. Their job—whether national, State or local—is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…

What is the duty of the People?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson was paraphrasing the liberal writer John Locke. Liberal is the correct term. Liberal actually means a person who believes in limited government.

I urge you to view a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Look at the list of grievances outlined. Do you really believe that the Constitution of the United States was intended to turn those grievances into government bureaucracies?

In fact the example our forefathers gave to comply with Romans 13 was given on April 19, 1775 in Concord and Lexington.

Benjamin Fearnow

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – In the wake of revelations about intrusive government surveillance, many American authors are worrying about the freedom of the press and some simply are avoiding controversial topics.

A new report from the PEN Center (PDF) and the FDR Group entitled “Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor” finds that 85 percent of surveyed writers are worried about government surveillance of Americans, and nearly three-quarters (73 percent) “have never been as worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today.”

Sixteen percent of writers have avoided writing or speaking about certain topics due to threatening privacy concerns, and an additional 11 percent have seriously considered such avoidance.

Writer comments included statements such as, “I assume everything I do electronically is subject to monitoring.”

Read more at CBS DC

---

My thoughts

---

I note the humor that the author of this CBS article is Benjamin Fearnow. Seems an appropriate name for the author to write a piece about people self-censoring their work based on the fear of NSA and DHS monitoring of the web.

I also note that the PEN American Center is part of “The FDR Group.” I presume (because we never assume) that means The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Group. The introduction to the paper states:

“We know—historically, from writers and intellectuals in the Soviet Bloc, and contemporaneously from writers, thinkers, and artists in China, Iran, and elsewhere—that aggressive surveillance regimes limit discourse and distort the flow of information and ideas. But what about the new democratic surveillance states?”

They, of course, use the term “democracy” throughout the paper as if the United States is a “Democracy.” This is a common misconception, of course. We are a Republic (Refer to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). The tyrannical governments listed in their introduction are democratic societies. They are based on the democracy of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

I could go on about the administrations of Wilson, FDR, and democrats thereafter. But you would not like it. I except John F. Kennedy from the list of communist democrats after studying some of the things he did. Though he believed in some socialist-democratic principles—such as the failed Medicare system—he also seemed to have a firm grasp of the Constitution. His vibrant support of the Second Amendment and the militia concept, desire to limit taxes all around and his belief in limited welfare made him more Republican in nature than a Democrat.

Though this group and I may differ in politics, we certainly agree on the frightening prospect of monitoring on the freedom of expression. After all, the First Amendment was never meant to protect speech I agree with.

How bad is the monitoring actually? Add to the monitoring other tyrannical principles of our “government”—some even praised by the Supreme Court. I use government in quotes because that is how most people refer to our employees.

The “Clear and Present Danger” doctrine of the Supreme Court was the first attack on the First Amendment. This doctrine is based on a decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States. After all, who determines a Clear and Present danger? The DHS did with it’s Right-Wing Extremism memo.

There are laws forbidding teaching that citizens are allowed take over their government. Yet the founders very clearly specified that in the government-approved Federalist Papers.

In a letter to Judge John Tyler in 1804, Thomas Jefferson noted:

“No experiment can be more interesting than that we are trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first objective should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

I am the first to admit that not everything on the Internet is true. Much is opinion. I have posted information that I thought was a researched article only to find that it was an e-mail someone received and had false information. I admit those mistakes when I find them or when they are brought to my attention. In the letter, Jefferson goes on to suggests that discretion should be used in any source of information.

The point is that Jefferson may not even been able to conceptualize the Internet, but very much would have been in support of keeping it free and open. Of course, in his day they used pseudonyms in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to fool the NSA.

The NSA “collecting of evidence” may very well be intimidating authors and this is sad. The very thing the founders wanted to avoid.

I have published two white papers on an Arizona State Guard at the Constitutional Republic Party web site. They are PDFs requiring Adobe Reader. I am working on more.

This classic reprint by Elihu Root touches on the “socialist” movement of the Woodrow Wilson era and explains why government intrusion is not always the answer. He argues that some modification to laws can be necessary without compromising the promise of our forefathers written down in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Nobel Prize organization said he, “…became one of the most brilliant administrators in American history,…” Why would they say that about him? Because he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912 while serving in the United States Senate. He did not receive the award, however, under some pretense that–somehow–destroying the American economy with carbon taxes would–somehow–make the earth a more peaceful place. He got his Nobel Prize the old-fashioned way. He earned it.

Root served as Secretary of War from 1899 to 1904 under Presidents McKinley and progressive Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Elihu Root. Mr. Root returned to private practice in 1904, but was called upon by Roosevelt in 1905 to assume the duties of the 38th Secretary of State. He served in that role until 1909 when he became a Senator until 1915. He declined another term as Senator and even declined the offer of the Republican party nomination as President.

With news that former Governor Janet Napolitano is a possible candidate for the Supreme Court, one might wonder just how she would interpret the Constitution of the United States of America. Would she interpret it “loosely?” Or would she actually feel bound by her oath to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?”

Let’s examine her most recent work at the Department of Homeland Security to see if we can divine some wisdom on the matter. She wrote an interesting Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment report and even developed her very own Lexicon.

In her “Rightwing Extremism” report, she concludes:

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

Let’s examine our perceived dangers of the restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Since we are examining her possible fitness for the Supreme Court, perhaps we should examine the words of a wise Latino woman who recently became a Supreme Court justice. During her confirmation, Sonia Sotomeyer spoke these wise words:

“The intent of the founders were set forth in the Constitution. They created the words; they created the document. It is their words that is the most important aspect of judging. You follow what they said in their words and you apply it to the facts you’re looking at.”—Sonia Sotomeyer, Senate confirmation hearings, July 2009

I wonder if she subscribes to the Davy Crockett school of Constitutional law?

On that basis, we shall examine just what the founding fathers might have thought about, say, the Second Amendment and “militia” duties in America.

“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”—Federalist Paper No. 29, Concerning the Militia

Sounds like a rightwing extremist. Imagine. Allowing citizens to be armed in case a tyrannical government is installed that violates the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and considers the Constitution so much toilet paper. Dang. Recent examples escape my mind.

It does seem interesting that she does not seem to mind torture being used to “find out terrorists.” In line with her Rightwing Extremist report, I guess that means torture may be used against people who believe murdering babies is wrong, returning veterans (turn-about is fair play, you understand) and members of the Tea Party movement.

I wonder how she would rule on the Patriot Act, that she now uses as extended by Obama. A Patriot Act that has been used against American non-terrorists. You can see what another unwise Philistine thinks about the Patriot Act here.

There are no Leftwing extremists, mind you. The SEIU only performs the public service of getting the word out for our new President. They are all just following the rules of their mentor Saul Alinsky.

* Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
* Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
* Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
* Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
* Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
* Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
* Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
* Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
* Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
* Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
* Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

It’s okay if we use violence. But, kids, don’t try this at home.

I don’t know. Supposedly, Stevens moved from a moderate conservative to a Communist. I suppose the reverse could occur.

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power and Deception in American History
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Forward by Ron Paul

Judge Andrew Napolitano, of Fox Network and radio talk show host, sat on the other side of the mic on Thursday, March 25 to be interviewed by Alex Jones. Late in the interview, he answered a question foremost in the minds of many listeners. In the process of answering a question concerning abuse of power, he said, “Just like Mike Chertoff handed it off to Janet Napolitano—and I know what you’re thinking. The answer is no. We are not related.”

I have not read the book because I have yet to receive my review copy. Of course, I haven’t asked for one. It is currently listed at No. 13 on the New York Times Best Selling List after about a week on the shelves. It follows AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES, by Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell which is currently No. 7 and NO APOLOGY, by Mitt Romney at No. 10.

Judge Napolitano began by explaining his friends reaction to the book. “When I told friends I was writing a book about the government and lies and that it was 4,000 pages long, everybody laughed and said were you able to get all the lies into 4,000 pages,” he said.

About the book: “It shows you the perception that the public has that the government does lie to us, has been lying to us, and we accept these lies and are willing to laugh about it. Even though every one of those lies that I talk about in the book, and those that you mentioned in the introduction destroys our liberty, destroys our freedom by inducing us to make political decisions on erroneous information that the government claims is true. And when we give up this liberty, and loose this property, we don’t get it back.”

In response to Alex’s inquiry about the State of the Union, the Judge replied, “The state of our union is that it is a bipartisan movement toward a police state, and we don’t have two parties in this country, Alex, even though most people think we do. And your listeners know that we have one party—the big government party. There’s a Republican wing that likes war, and deficits and assaults our civil liberties. There’s a Democratic wing that likes welfare, and taxes, and assaults our commercial liberties. But they basically will feed each other because they’re not interested in freedom, they don’t believe in fidelity to the Constitution, they’re just interested in power.”

He described an interview he conducted with James E Clyburn—D, South Carolina Sixth District to illustrate his point. “I mean, on my radio show last month I asked the number three ranking Democrat in the House of representatives—Congressman Jim Clyburn—Congressman, where in the Constitution is the government authorized to regulate health care. And he said to me, Judge, most of what we do down here—referring to Washington—is not authorized by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is it prohibited that we regulate health care? The very fact that he would ask that question shows a tremendous 180-degree misunderstanding of the federal government.

“The Congress is not a general legislature,” Judge Napolitano continued. “It doesn’t exist in order to right every wrong. It exists only to exercise power in seventeen unique, discreet, specific, well-defined set-out areas in a piece of paper called the Constitution to which he took an oath to uphold. At least he was candid enough to acknowledge they’re not upholding it.”

Alex said that states joining the upcoming suit is not enough and that we need to have states nullify, under the ninth and tenth amendment, not just this but denying them from taking highway and education funds.

“Well, you know it’s one thing, Alex, for a state legislature and a governor to sign a piece of paper saying we stand on our Tenth Amendment and we are a sovereign State. It would be quite another for a state legislature to enact legislation that did the following: Prohibit state employees from enforcing federal law. Indite federal officials who come into the state with intention of enforcing federal law that conflicts with state law. Imposing real estate tax on federal property within the state. Now I know that that has been unlawful for the past two-hundred years, but suffice it to say we have a different Supreme Court, now, that might look at this differently. Drag before county and state grand juries federal officers who insist on enforcing federal law that is unconstitutional within the states. The states really have to stand up for their sovereignty. They have to do more than say we are a sovereign state. There has to be teeth to their proclamation of sovereignty.”

Judge Napolitano suggested a change in the election system. “Now I would like to see the popular election of Senators done away with. I would like to see state legislatures send members of the Senate to the Senate, because then they wouldn’t be stealing power from the states or those Senators would soon be out of their jobs.

The problem that I see is that both means of selecting a Senator—the one that we currently use and the one he suggests—is fraught with inherent corruption. Promises and back room deals could still be made at the State level. Another suggestion of term limits for Senators could, of course, cause the early resignation of a good Senator. I might suggest changing the election cycle of Senators to every two years as we do with the members of the House of Representatives. Further, citizens should be able to recall Senators. Anything we do, however, still requires due diligence by an educated citizenry.

The thing that we have learned, I suppose, is that we should be more willing to fight the government, especially at the school level. We should be teaching the true Constitution, along with reading and math. Instead of indoctrinating, we should be instilling the passion to learn in our students.

“The federal government didn’t begin to grow to gargantuan proportions until the progressive era with the popular election of Senators were able to pander to the collectivist impulses of the masses and deliver as big a piece of pie as they could and create the permanent underclass that relied on them for support and return of their votes,” the Judge explained.

You know when Janet, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet what’s-her-name, announced that the most dangerous people on the planet were the groups you just indicate—right-to-lifers, people who believe in a Second Amendment, returning veterans from the wars, people who think taxes are too high and the government is too onerous—I got in an argument on air with one of my Fox colleagues who said to me well she knows that you are in favor of Second Amendment rights, she knows that you’re pro-life and she knows you’re against the IRS, but how does she know that everybody else feels that way? I said because she can capture—her agents can capture—every keystroke on your computer. How can she do that? he says. Because she has the power under the Patriot act which you—I won’t tell you which Fox colleague this was, but you can probably guess—which you supported when your guy, George W. Bush, was in the White House. Now it’s in the hands of those who would use this power against you. What are you, Crazy? Don’t you realize liberty, once given up, and put in the hands of the government as power never comes back?

“I think the American people should vote out of office, and aggressively hound out of office—lawfully, obviously—not only everyone who voted for Obamacare, but everyone who voted for TARP—proposed by George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for the first two stimuluses that we’ve had in the past four years, which came from George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for the Patriot act, which came from George W. Bush. Everyone who voted for any tax increase. Now that would be about ninety-three to ninety-four percent of the Congress. These people’s voting records must be revealed.

“The collusion of Rand Paul being forced against the guy who’s in charge of counting the ballots. Even Joe Stalin wouldn’t have been so bold as to do that. he would have put a crony in to count the ballots. But in Kentucky, the Republicans are forcing Rand Paul to run against the guy who will decide who wins the election. The American public cannot put up with that.”

Jones asked why the government would want to destroy the economy?

“The government wants to control us because of what Saint Augustan called libido dominandi. Look, we all know about certain types of libido. This is a lust for power. Before the Civil war, we sent people to our State houses and to Congress who were interested in Liberty. Who were concerned with confining the government with assuring that it did not interfere with our natural rights, with our civil liberties, and with our property rights. Since the Civil war, we have sent people to the government—by-and-large. There are exception both before the Civil war and after wards.

“But by-and-large, people who were not interested in liberty, but people who were interested in power. Power for its own sake. Power in and of itself. Power to control other people. Government attracts those with lust for power. Ron Paul and Rand Paul, and Ron Paul’s colleagues in the House and—if there are any in the Senate I’m unaware of them—are the exception to the rule. But for the most part, this is the type of human being that the government attracts.

“And this type of illicit aggregation of power gets worse, and worse and worse, because when they get power, they hand it off to their successors. Just like Mike Chertoff handed it off to Janet Napolitano, and I know what you’re thinking. The answer is no. We are not related. This happens generation after generation after generation. That’s why I’m not optimistic about our future because it will take a generation of Drs. Paul to change this. To stop it. To reverse it.”

Also discussed was the recent move by McCain-Liberman to destroy personal liberties by revisiting the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. You can find Senator McCain’s statement on the matter here. The Senate Bill proposed is S. 3081 entitled Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. The Judge pointed out that under this bill, it would require an act of Congress to release you from U.S. government custody. This interferes with the due process clauses of the Constitution.

In a recent television interview concerning health care legislation, purported to understand what the founding fathers envisioned. About the lawsuits he said they are going, “…pretty well. You notice that State Legislatures and Attorneys General and Governors all over America are challenging the Constitutionality. I think they have very legitimate Constitutional challenge. The government’s now going to force individuals to buy health care insurance at the level they want them to have it, and if they don’t they are going to fine them. I’m not sure that is what the founding father’s that had in mind.”

It’s amazing that Senator McCain cannot see the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the same light. He does not seem to understand the separation of powers inherent in the words of the Constitution. He apparently is unfamiliar with Article III of the Constitution. It is amazing how people invoke the image of the brown parchment when it suits their needs.

Judge Napolitano explained a bit of Constitutional History. “Do you remember, Alex, studying basic American History? The King of England had ingenious ways to tax us. The last straw was the Stamp act. It required that every colonists have on every piece of paper in his or her home a stamp. Every book, every bank draft, every mortgage, every lease, every deed, every pamphlet, even a poster that was going to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. Imagine having to go—we have enough difficulties with the Post Office, as it is—you had to go to a foreign post office in the colonies and buy the King’s stamp.

“Question. How did the government know if you had the King’s stamp on every piece of paper in your house? Answer: The Parliament enacted the Townsend acts which permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants. And thus they would show up at your home and hand you a piece of paper on which they had purported to authorized themselves to enter your home ostensibly to look for the stamps. Of course they would confiscate alcohol. They would confiscate furniture which you couldn’t demonstrate you had paid taxes on. They would even sometimes kick you out of the house and take it over for days, or weeks, or months.

“We fought a revolution. We won the Revolution. We wrote a Constitution. We added the Fourth Amendment to that Constitution. Which, next to the right-to-life, is the greatest right there is; the right to be left alone. And it says the government can’t come onto your property and can’t seize what you have and can’t intrude into your privacy unless it goes to a judge and demonstrates to a neutral judge that its more likely than not that you are committing a crime.”

“Fast forward two-hundred years to the Patriot act. What does the Patriot act do? It allows federal agents to write their own search warrants. We have elected a government that has done the very same thing to us, which was the last straw when we broke away from an island three-thousand miles away that was regulating us as if we were chattel and as if we were slaves to them.”