Here you will find the rantings and ravings of yours truly. The topics covered will the items that interest ME. Don't expect "fair and balanced" coverage, because you won't get it. You may get headaches, heartburn, high blood pressure and / or shortness of breath. You will get honest, straightforward news and views according to ME! "We" (the editorial we) are politically incorrect - 24/7/365. We are non-partisan. We abuse everybody in some way, shape or form.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

STATES SEND WARNING TO FEDS


States say feds will not usurp powers guaranteed to them by 9th, 10th Amendments


By Pat Shannan


More than 20 states have passed recent resolutions in defiance of the central government’s intrusion into their liberties and governing powers, with all including a demand to obey the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. New Hampshire has issued what may be the harshest “Don’t Tread on Me” caveat of all. Citing its own state constitution, the New Hampshire Legislature has issued its recent resolution “affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles” and reminding any Washington interventionists of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution as well as Part 1, Article 7 of their own state document that declares “. . . that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto . . .”


It continued: “Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: that the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘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,’ therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and . . .


“That any act by the Congress of the United States, executive order of the president of the United States of America or judicial order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several states or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:


“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states without the consent of the legislature of that state.


“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.


“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.“


IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.


“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.“


VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and “That should any such act of Congress become law or executive order or judicial order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several states individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the states seeking to form a government.”


Ever since Vermont threatened secession and others of the 20-plus have issued lesser threatening notices of intentions, all have made it clear that they are not happy with the current situation, and the action of all indicates that the New World Order may have a bigger problem on its hands than it initially considered.


The 21 states so far that have either introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments or are about to do so include: Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada, Kansas, Indiana, Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, California, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, and, of course, New Hampshire.


In another defiance of unconstitutional federal controls, governors are telling Washington bureaucrats that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot dictate spending or other actions to the states. (“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.”)


“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state,” said Arizona state representative Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.”Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) introduced a resolution he said would enable his state to “reclaim the 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violationof the 10th Amendment.”


Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations about accepting stimulus funds because they are concerned that the federal government will dictate how it is spent.


The federal government extracts money from their taxpayers, sends a bit of it back and then dictates how it is spent, they argue.


Pat Shannan is a corresponding editor of American Free Press.


Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 17, 2008

Ron Paul Roars In Lone Star State


By Pat Shannan


Famed journalistic curmudgeon H.L. Mencken wrote in The Baltimore Sun nearly a century ago, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The current presidential (crooked) election primaries demonstrate that the adage still fits snugly with the American voter.


Speaking of the Elvis-like frenzy at a recent Barack Obama rally, Charlotte Allen of The Washington Post said:


“We scream, we swoon. How dumb can we get?” Her Post colleague, Linda Hirshman, bemoaning the fact that “. . . women are split every way they can be. They’re the only bloc not voting their bloc,” further wrote, “American women still aren’t strategic enough to form a meaningful political movement directed at taking power.”


In other words, vote for the woman simply because she’s a woman. Obama can count on deriving most of the black votes for no other reason than he is at least half black.


That’s certainly enough, to them, for him to be the president. This seems to be the most important determining factor for both groups: ”He/she is one of us.”


That’s enough. Would it make any difference even if the two Democratic candidates were Rosie O’Donnell and O.J. Simpson? Probably not.


Clinton and Obama say they want “change.” Really? What have you two frauds done to bring about change since you became senators? You’ve been sitting up there for 10 years between you.


On the Republican side, John McCain is willing to keep troops in Iraq “for a hundred years,” legalize illegal aliens and generally continue to do whatever the existing agenda directs, in order to sell out American sovereignty to the New World Order.


These three traitors are chronicled, day in and day out, on the evening news and the morning newspapers. Yet, while any of them, prior to their recent elevation to “star status” by the media, would have been jubilant to draw 750 people at any speaking engagement, Ron Paul drew a crowd to the capitol steps in Austin, Texas last week estimated by police to be at 7,500. However, unless you were there, that fact would have been difficult to find out.


Certainly, no other newsman told you. So there’s one more reason why Ron Paul must stay in the race and as a Republican, at least until convention time right after Labor Day. He must stay not only to enlighten the American people about his sensible platform, but also so he may be able to continue to expose the fraudulent news media for what they really are: deceivers.


Without the deceptive news media—or with fair and honest reporting—Ron Paul would have already sent John McCain back to the Senate and would already be the all but elected new president. But the media have created the appearance that the American people don’t want Paul to be president, when it is the Republican planners who don’t want him. As the campaign trail lengthens and the revolution expands, it is becoming more and more obvious that Ron Paul is the people’s choice.


A radio commentator said that when George W. Bush took office, the euro could be bought with 82 American cents—the overnight change on your dresser. Now with the trading price at $1.53, that 2001 figure may be doubled before you read this. The American economy is crashing, and the Federal Reserve Note “dollar” is doomed. For the past quarter century or more, monetary realists have pointed out that no nation in the history of this planet has ever survived a paper money scheme, and this one won’t either.


Now we have reached the end of the line. It is now a crisis. Unless the nation’s constitutional monetary system of circulating gold and/or silver coin is restored—and Ron Paul is the only candidate who will do that—then this generation of Americans will witness a crash and depression that will make 1929 look like a Sunday School picnic.


Now, with that in mind, just how many black Americans or female white Americans would really want to see “one of their own” in the White House, if they knew what they were trading for it? Instead of the first woman or first black president, how about we get the first honest president?


The climate of the times demands it. Even if any of the other candidates, upon being inaugurated, decided that a move to an honest monetary system was indeed the right thing to do, he or she would have to appoint Ron Paul secretary of Treasury to carry out the plans because none of the others has a clue how to do it.


One’s knowledge is only as good as one’s information. If people are not aware of the above facts, then they certainly are justified in making their frivolous complaints all summer long about not having any viable candidates. On the other hand, if the multitudes can be made aware that there is one viable candidate out there—a statesman rather than just another lying politician—then not only would the meaningless debates cease but the voter’s decision would be simplified, and the total vote for Ron Paul would be so overwhelming that a computer vote fraud would need to be massive indeed to prevent his election.


This is what begins to happen when an “unknown” and one who many erroneously think (because of news media deception) has already dropped out of the race, draws 7,500 people at a gathering, while the opposition quietly drools in jealousy.


One fraud, Mike Huckabee (who dropped out), the CFR’s anointed one to thwart the Paul campaign with his phony conservatism, recently announced that, as president, he would “do away with the IRS.” Is that plagiarizing a script from Dr. Paul? But “Fakeabee” hasn’t the slightest intention of doing any sort of thing because he has no idea why it should be done. He still thinks the income tax funds something. His is no more than cheap, hollow rhetoric from a deceptive politician.


How can we know this? Because he didn’t mention dismantling the FED. Ron Paul is the only candidate who knows that an income tax—and this is straight out of the Communist Manifesto—is necessary only to control a fiat currency. When governments (or in this case, private bankers) can turn on the printing presses at will, then something else is necessary to vacuum up the excess paper and credit each year to prevent hyper-inflation.


However, the system still loses a little more ground each year and eventually even the “vacuum cleaner” is not enough to handle the problem.


The income tax has no function in a system of circulating gold and/or silver coin. If you have wondered how and why both of these destructive planks surreptitiously became a part of the American system in the same year, 1913, that is your answer. One is no good without the other. Why did the people allow our government to permit an independent organization to run our economy in the first place? It was corruption from the start.


President Ron Paul would likely destroy the IRS the benign way: by pardoning every person in federal prison who is there because of a phony tax conviction and stopping all future prosecutions by doing the same thing the morning following any other convictions.


Meanwhile, Americans detest tax increases, and 10-term Congressman Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase.


As a physician, he has delivered over 4,000 babies and is yet to meet the first mother whose pregnancy was so endangered that she required an abortion. Is it any wonder that he is “pro life?”


A few American communities are finally passing laws to deport illegal aliens, but Ron Paul would send them all home posthaste and then build a fence across the southern border to keep them out. It would cost far less than the financing of “foreign entanglements”.


Guarding the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would not present any manpower problem, because President Ron Paul would bring home the thousands of troops now tormenting the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.


“A nation without secure borders is no nation at all,” says he, who, incidentally, will never support these wars or any other war “declared” by a president instead of the constitutionally mandated Congress.


And if these Bush/Cheney wars are going so well, how come Ron Paul gets more votes and donations from military personnel than all of the other candidates combined? President Paul would do away with government “snoopervision” edicts such as the misnamed “Patriot Act,” which was a giant step toward a police state and had nothing to do with stopping international terrorists.


Who can think of any reason to vote for anyone else? The answer to is: no one, if they know the facts. Ron Paul would be the choice for president in November, if the people were allowed to learn the facts.


Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press.
(Issue # 11, March 17, 2008)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,