<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Political Watchdog &#187; EDUCATION</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/category/education/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>truth in politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:44:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast Episode 1</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/16/podcast-episode-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/16/podcast-episode-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2012 ELECTION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DR. RON PAUL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PODCAST]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Readers, PODCAST: Episode 1 In this podcast Peter Schiff will explain how the Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan contains a HIDDEN 9! You will also hear about the Ron Paul Black This Out money bomb on October 19th. Be sure you pledge by going to this site: http://www.blackthisout.com/users/politicalwd]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Readers,</p>
<p><strong>PODCAST: Episode 1</strong><br />
In this podcast Peter Schiff will explain how the Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan contains a HIDDEN 9!</p>
<p>You will also hear about the Ron Paul Black This Out money bomb on October 19th. Be sure you pledge by going to this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.blackthisout.com/users/politicalwd" target="_blank">http://www.blackthisout.com/users/politicalwd</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/16/podcast-episode-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://politicalwatchdog.com/audio/PWD1.mp3" length="57019163" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citizen Hat</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2010/08/31/citizen-hat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2010/08/31/citizen-hat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>News and Commentaries</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By John Chambers We wear many hats in life, but often neglected is the Citizen Hat. You remember the old story of Ben Franklin, when he came out of the Constitutional Convention?  A Mrs. Powel anxiously asked Franklin: &#8220;Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?&#8221; &#8220;A republic,&#8221; answered Franklin, &#8220;if you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By John Chambers</p>
<p>We wear many hats in life, but  often neglected is the Citizen Hat.</p>
<p>You remember the old story of  Ben Franklin, when he came out of the Constitutional Convention?  A Mrs. Powel anxiously asked Franklin: &#8220;Well  Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a  monarchy?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;A republic,&#8221; answered  Franklin, &#8220;if you can keep it.</p>
<p>You keep the republic by  wearing your hat, as a Citizen.</p>
<p>Many people, you included, see  that our republic has come to the edge of the abyss and we are about to lose  it.  We are desparate for the Hat of a  Citizen so we can wear it and pull our republic back from the  brink.</p>
<p>Suddenly, folks are grabbing  their copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Federalist  Papers, feverishly reading, hoping these documents will tell them what to do as  a Citizen.</p>
<p>Those documents will give you  an idea of ‘how things ought to be’ but they are the job description of the  government, not the job description of a citizen.  You need them to do your job, but where is  the description of <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">your</span></em> job?</p>
<p>Government schools taught you  civics, but not your job as a citizen.</p>
<p>Some folks aim to rally the  citizenry by writing blogs and putting up websites.  They inform other citizens of things that  need to be done.  These are important,  but how can you tell if you are being rallied for another round of “hope and  change”?  And how does blogging and  participating in tea party rallys fit into the <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">overall</span></em> job of a citizen?</p>
<p><a title="http://www.citizenhat.org" href="http://www.citizenhat.org/" target="_blank">http://www.citizenhat.org</a> is  devoted to the description of your job as a citizen.  It’s not fancy and no interactive games, but  if you put in 20 or 30 minutes, starting with the first link, you will begin to  learn your job, starting with the definition of citizen.  It may be different than you  think.</p>
<p>Only a citizenry wearing their  Citizen Hat will keep the Republic.</p>
<p>(What’s the difference between  a Republic and a Democracy, anyway?  See  pages 13-17 of the Citizen Hat, first link at <a title="http://www.citizenhat.org" href="http://www.citizenhat.org/" target="_blank">http://www.citizenhat.org</a> )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2010/08/31/citizen-hat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amendment  Seven</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/08/amendment-seven/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/08/amendment-seven/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our experiment in self rule can not succeed. Our republican form of government with the rule of common law is like cancer for the ruling elite. We not only have to fail, we have to be made an example of. Now you know why they are after the guns. We citizens have a test before [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our  experiment in self rule can not succeed.  Our republican form of government with the rule of common law is like cancer for the ruling elite. We not only have to fail, we have to be made an example of.  Now you know why they are after the guns.  We citizens have a test before us, and that is, do we fight for our liberty or not?  One of the tactics of our enemy is redefining the terms in our contract with government, our <span>Constitution</span>.  The following is an example.</p>
<p><strong>Fundamental  #17 </strong></p>
<div>I am stepping up the pace because things are escalating by our government.   I said &#8216;our&#8217; government.  Whew, understand that a government is never ours.   The government we instituted is as foreign to us as some government in Europe.   All we can do is hope to keep it from devouring us.  If we show weakness, it will   do just that.  <span>Thomas Jefferson</span> told us, &#8220;Lo that we ever be twenty years without   a revolution&#8230;&#8221;  Why?  In twenty years, tyrants aren&#8217;t in such big numbers to have   to destroy everything to rid ourselves of them. Despots are drawn to governments   to ply their trade.  Think of <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Washington</span> as a commode that has to be flushed from   time to time to keep it from becoming septic.</p>
<p>Today, your VII Amendment to the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Bill of Rights</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Amendment 7</strong><br />
 &#8220;In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">trial by jury</span> shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of   the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.&#8221;      Consider yourselves among the very few that have ever read your Bill of Rights at all.    I gave a speech to over three hundred (wannabe) citizens.  I asked for a show of hands if they had ever read the Bill of Rights.  None were raised.  When we decided to let government take over the education of our children, this is the end result. This from Ben Franklin: &#8220;A man who has been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given him cannot be enslaved it is the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.&#8221;      This VII &#8220;Right&#8221; speaks volumes.  It says that in matters of twenty dollars or more we are entitled to a trial by jury.  The twenty dollars referred to here was a Spanish rolled coin of 271.25 grains of silver, a hefty sum in those days indeed.     The next part of this &#8216;right&#8217; has some very important legal terms.    Lets look at the jury first.  We don&#8217;t need seven lawyers to define our rights for us, we just need a dictionary.The 1913 edition is the tyrants edition.  The 1828 edition is ours.</p>
<p><strong>1913 edition: Ju&#8221;ry</strong> <tt>(?)</tt>, <tt>n.</tt>; pl. Juries <tt>(#)</tt> . [OF. jurée an assize, fr.  jurer to swear, L. jurare , jurari ;</p>
<p>akin to jus , juris , right, law. See <a rel="nofollow" href="http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Just" target="_blank"><span>Just</span></a>,<tt>a.</tt>, and cf. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Jurat" target="_blank"><span>Jurat</span></a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Abjure" target="_blank"><span>Abjure</span></a>.]</p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> (Law) A body of men, usually twelve, selected according to law, impaneled and sworn to inquire into</p>
<p>and try any matter of fact, and to render their true verdict according to the evidence legally adduced.</p>
<p>See <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Grand jury</span> under <a rel="nofollow" href="http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Grand" target="_blank"><span>Grand</span></a>, and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Inquest" target="_blank"><span>Inquest</span></a>.</p>
<hr />
Displaying <strong>1</strong> result(s) from the <strong>1828</strong> edition:       </p>
<hr />
<strong>JU&#8221;RY</strong>, n. [L. juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. <span>Grand juries</span> consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, <span style="font-weight: bold">and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. </span>The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict. (bold mine)       </p>
<hr />
Here are the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;">supreme Court rulings</span> based on this definition    <span>Georgia</span> V. Brailsford  (1794) &#8220;A jury has the power to judge the law in bringing a general verdict.&#8221; <a rel="nofollow" href="http://3.us/" target="_blank"><span>3.US</span></a>,1 (Dall)  Here is the nail in our coffi: Sparf &amp; Hanson V. U.S. &#8220;Jurors do not need to be informed of their power to judge the law in bringing a general verdict.&#8221; 156 U,S. 51,64C (1895)     <span style="background-color: #ff7f00;font-size: large">You are supposed to already know this!</span> This will explain how this power can be used to take back our republic.</p>
<h3><a rel="nofollow" href="http://freedomlaw.com/JRPSTUPID.html" target="_blank"><span>THE  <em>JURY</em>, STUPID</span></a></h3>
<div>In 1789, <em>Thomas Jefferson</em> wrote in a letter to <span><span><em>Thomas</em> Paine</span></span>: “I consider trial by <em>jury</em> as the only anchor<br />
 ever yet imagined by men, by which the government <strong>&#8230;</strong><br />
 <cite><a rel="nofollow" href="http://freedomlaw.com/JRPSTUPID.html" target="_blank"><span>freedomlaw.com/JRPSTUPID.html</span></a> &#8211; 35k</cite></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div>You see that the trial by jury is in the Bill of Rights.  It is our right to have a jury standing between a government and the citizen to protect them.  It is a right!      You have the right to be tried by a jury of freeholders.  A freeholder in today&#8217;s jargon is someone that owns a home, not some drifter off the streets.  A responsible citizen with an interest in his/her community.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The term &#8220;peers&#8221; is not used here. This is used today to get ethnic groups on the jury when some ethnic group member is being tried.  A peer is someone who knows you and knows your circumstances.     A jury is also our last line of defense against arbitrary laws by government.  Arbitrary laws are unenforceable therefore, there is no end to the amount of force that government can apply to make us comply with that law.  Laws that regulate your behavior fall into this category.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Prohibition laws are   arbitrary laws that a jury can send back to the legislature.     If you look at the 1913 definition above, you will see the definition  that   took  one of our protections from us.  You see where they deleted our right to judge the law?  After the altered definition, all law schools, judges and lawyers were told to enforce the new meaning.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Our Constitution is a contract.  Once both parties sign a contract, it cannot be altered. The original meaning of the word jury still stands.  The 1828 dictionary was in the works for seventy years before it was published.     Next is the law we agreed would govern our interactions with each other.</div>
<div></div>
<div>You see, a free citizen can only be governed by laws the citizen agrees with&#8211;otherwise he/she is a slave.     We all agreed that &#8220;common law&#8221; would govern our interactions.  Here is the basics of that law:</div>
<blockquote><ol>
<li>Do everything you have agreed to do.  (the basics of contract law)</li>
<li>Do not encroach onto anther&#8217;s liberty or property. (the basics of civil and some criminal     law) </li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>Something should stand   out  for you here after reading our law, and that is, if there is no victim, there cannot be a crime.  Your life, your thoughts and your body belong to none other than you&#8211;that&#8217;s the very essence of freedom.     In today&#8217;s <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;">Courtrooms</span> the judge determines what a jury can and cannot see.  That is a trial  by a Jury and a Judge.  Wrong again pale face.    &#8220;Cannot be reexamined in any court&#8230;&#8221;  The jury is the most powerful presence in the Court room.  The Judge is just a referee.  You, my brothers and sisters, are powerful self ruled citizens. Dance like no body is watching!</div>
<div></div>
<div>Next, Amendment VI</div>
<div></div>
<div>Citizen Conway</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/08/amendment-seven/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex post Facto</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GUN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” – Thomas Jefferson “DISCRETION, n. [L, a separating. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” – Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>“DISCRETION, n. [L, a separating. See Discreet.]</p>
<p>1. Prudence, or knowledge and prudence; that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper, united with caution; nice discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection, and primarily regarding ones own conduct.”  1828</p>
<p>You have all read Section 8 by now.  Did you happen to see where this group of people from a political party can pass whatever legislation they want?  No, it is limited to the duties in Section 8. Did you see where this entity has the power to interfere in our personal lives at all?  NO!<br />
Here is a list of things this government is not allowed to do when it comes to performing the functions as specifically spelled out in Section 8..</p>
<pre>Section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    The "migration" here refers to moving a slave from one State to another.  The
importation refers to the import of a slave
 from another country. That is why
a slave could be taxed.  It was considered an importation of a commodity.  Both
practices would end in 1808.
    Migration is not mentioned any where else in the Constitution.  The States,
before the Constitution, controlled their own immigration.  Because it doesn't
mention in the Constitution who controlds immigration, you defer to the Tenth Amendment.
All powers not specifically given this government by this constitution are reserved to
the States.  The States control immigration, not some far off foreign government. 

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

There has to be a body, or evidence of a crime.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bill of Attainder:  "Blacks Law Dictionary" edition one:
"A Legislative Act
 directed at a designated person pronouncing him guilty of an
alleged crime, usually treason With Out trial or conviction according to the
recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him.
    "Bills of Attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts
of the legislature as inflict capital punishment upon persons supposed to be guilty
of high of fences such as treason or felony, with out cinviction in the ordinary course
of judicial proceedings.  If an act inflicts a lesser degree of punishment then the act
is called a "Bill of Pains and Punishment.  Both are included in the prohibition in
the Constitution."

EX POST FACTO;
   This is the only foreign language word in the Constitution.  Why?  It is Latin,
a dead language, so you can't change its meaning.  It is a hugely important word.
It means, after the fact, or retroactive.  Lets say I purchased a shot gun
 today
and it is legal today. A law can be passed making it illegal tomorrow to buy a shot
gun.  I can't be prosecuted because it was legal when I purchased the gun.
    A real creep changed the meaning of this word anyway.  It was the only supreme
Court Justice to be impeached for his arrogance and partisan politics.  His name
was Samuel Portlan Chase, you know, Chase Manhattan Bank.  He defined it as only
pertaining to criminal law, not taxes. 

Next 27-B

Citizen Conway</pre>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Powers of the Jury</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-26/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-26/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ELECTION REFORM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many people asked me for the jury rulings in PDF Format.  Here is a link that can do just that below.  Here is another link that shows you the power of using the ability to judge the law to restore our republic.  Please please pass this information on. Fundamental #26-Jury We all want smaller and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people asked me for the jury rulings in PDF Format.  Here is a link that can do just that below.  Here is another link that shows you the power of using the ability to judge the law to restore our republic.  Please please pass this information on.</p>
<p><strong>Fundamental #26-Jury</strong></p>
<p>We all want smaller and less intrusive government.  Here is how we get just that.  This is our best tool. The supreme Court decision referred to here was Sparf &amp; Hansen V. the U.S.  The Court ruled that, &#8220;the jury does not have to be informed of their power to judge the law.&#8221;  The Congress has the power to over rule this decision.  Until then, it is up to you to educate your neighbor<br />
I have met very informed citizens that were uninformed of this power.  The below is a short read, but essential to the peaceful restoration of our republic.</p>
<p>If you haven&#8217;t seen it yet, here is the supreme Court ruling affirming this power:<br />
Georgia V. Brailsford 3.US.1 (Dall)  (1794)<br />
&#8220;The Jury has the power to judge the law in bringing a general verdict.&#8221;</p>
<p>In Liberty,<br />
John Conway</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-26/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ethics and Morals</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/145/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/145/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ELECTION REFORM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENVIRONMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #25 {Before I go any further, you should know that there is no provision in our Constitution all;owing the transients occupying our Federal government to give our tax dollars in foreign aid.} My fellow freedom fighters, There is something very concrete that we can all do if we want our republic back.  Now that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fundamental #25</p>
<p>{Before I go any further, you should know that there is no provision in our Constitution all;owing the transients occupying our Federal government to give our tax dollars in foreign aid.}</p>
<p>My fellow freedom fighters,<br />
There is something very concrete that we can all do if we want our republic back.  Now that we all understand that a republic is the rule of law, you must also understand that we can&#8217;t have the rule of law if every one doesn&#8217;t respect the law.  People don&#8217;t respect the law, each other, themselves and private property or anything else unless they have a good base in  morals and ethics.  Other wise, we are begging for the rule of force.  You now understand why government attacks religion.  Government types understand that government is nothing but force.  Those that are in government want bigger government, more power, and more money for themselves.<br />
They have ran  the teaching of morals out of public schools under the some made up doctrine of the&#8221;separation of Church and State.&#8221;  That is an all out attack on the first Amendment that states, &#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;&#8230;&#8221;  That is the separation of the State from religion.  They can&#8217;t prohibit the free exercise anywhere.  There is no &#8220;except on government property&#8221; clause here.  It also doesn&#8217;t say, &#8220;unless it offends someone else.&#8221;</p>
<p>“…governing powers have ever shown disposition to weaken and remove.  Of the first kind for instance, is freedom of Religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free press.”  Thomas Jefferson to N. Webster, 1790  (bold mine)  Now you know why government attacks religion first.  Government by its very nature is evil.  That&#8217;s why we wrote a Constitution to try and limit its scope.  The Bill of Rights would have better lent itself to our understanding if it had been called the &#8220;Bill of Further Limitations on this Government.&#8221;  I mean look at it, the tenth Amendment says that if we forgot anything, you can&#8217;t do that either!</p>
<p><strong><br />
Robert Winthrop</strong>, <em>Speaker of the U. S. House,</em> &#8220;Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power       within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of        God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.&#8221;</p>
<h1><strong>George Washington</strong>,       <em>General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation</em>,        &#8221; Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong>Benjamin Franklin</strong>, <em>Signer of the Declaration of Independence</em> &#8220;[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have found a wonderful little booklet that I have personally seen turn around the lives of everyone that has the good fortune to get their hands on.  Each chapter is only one or two pages for those of the short attention span.  It has no connection to any religion and can be read anywhere.  It has chapters with titles like:&#8221;Take Care of Yourself,&#8221; Be Temperate&#8221;  &#8220;Don&#8217;t be Promiscuous, &#8220;Love and Help Children&#8221; &#8220;Be Industrious&#8221; &#8220;Be Worthy of Trust&#8221; &#8220;Support a Government Designed And Run For All The People&#8221; and  more..</p>
<p>People of all ages need direction today, particularly our children.  Now you know why.  We the People are under siege from every quarter, we always are.  Here is how to obtain these wonderful pamphlets:</p>
<p>&#8220;The Way to Happiness Foundation.&#8221; 1-800-255-7906 or 1-818-254-0600</p>
<p>201 E. Broadway,</p>
<p>Glendale, CA 91205 USA</p>
<p>For all of you already holding &#8220;The way to Happiness&#8221; classes for kids, you don&#8217;t know how integral  you are to restoring our Republic..</p>
<p>Do not do nothing!</p>
<p>John Conway</h1>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/145/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Constitution&#8217;s basic meaning</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ELECTION REFORM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENVIRONMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOREIGN WARS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GUN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #24 Constitutional Quotes The following quotes make some important points about the principles of constitutional republican government: The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fundamental #24</p>
<div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font-family: inherit;font-style: inherit;font-variant: inherit;font-weight: inherit;font-size: inherit;line-height: inherit" valign="top">
<p align="center"><span style="font-size: x-small">Constitutional Quotes</span></p>
<p><strong>The following quotes make some important points about the principles of  constitutional republican government:</strong></p>
<p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p>The <span>Constitution</span> was written to be understood by the voters; its words and  phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical  meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no  excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin <em>v</em>. Hunter&#8217;s Lessee, 1  Wheat 304; <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Gibbons <em>v</em>. Ogden</span>, 9 Wheat 419; Brown <em>v</em>. Maryland, 12  Wheat 419; Craig <em>v</em>. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee <em>v</em>. Whitworth,  117 U.S. 139; Lake County <em>v</em>. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Hodges <em>v</em>.  United States</span>, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards <em>v</em>. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The  <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Pocket Veto Case</span>, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed.,  Sec 451; Cooley&#8217;s Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.</p>
<p>It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be  without effect;&#8230; — Marbury <em>v</em>. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).</p>
<p>The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not  alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina  <em>v</em>. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).</p>
<p>History is clear that the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">first ten amendments to the Constitution</span> were  adopted to secure certain <span>common law rights</span> of the people, against invasion by  the Federal Government. — Bell <em>v</em>. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947)  U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.</p>
<p>In the United States, <span>Sovereignty</span> resides in the people, who act through the  organs established by the Constitution. — Chisholm <em>v</em>. Georgia, 2 Dall  419, 471; Penhallow <em>v</em>. Doane&#8217;s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock  <em>v</em>. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,  370.</p>
<p>The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which  precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its  adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its  source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be  enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. — Pollock <em>v</em>. Farmers&#8217; Loan  &amp; Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.</p>
<p>The values of the <span>Framers of the Constitution</span> must be applied in any case  construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the  Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original  understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the  constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to  increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the  Constitution, the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Bill of Rights</span>, or any other amendments. — Powell <em>v</em>.  McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).</p>
<p>To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning,  would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation.  &#8220;In expounding the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Constitution of the United States</span>,&#8221; said <span>Chief Justice Taney</span> in Holmes <em>v</em>. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, &#8220;every word must have its due  force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument,  that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions  which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved  the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and  the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have  been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been  fully understood. — Wright <em>v</em>. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).</p>
<p>The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where  reference to <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">common law</span> and to British institutions as they were when the  instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention  who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were  born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in  its vocabulary&#8230;when they came to put their conclusions into the form of  fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law,  confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. — Ex Parte Grossman,  267 U.S. 87, 108.</p>
<p>The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere  pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at  the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the  legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute  purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the <span>public morals</span>,  or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or  is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty  of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. —  Mugler <em>v</em>. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.</p>
<p>Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be  liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of  constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd  <em>v</em>. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.</p>
<p>It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who  adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used.  When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all  courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to  restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must  accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is  the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.</p>
<p>Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly  received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to  the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle  and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation.  — A State Ex Rel. Torryson <em>v</em>. Grey, 21 Ne<em>v</em>. 378, 32 P. 190.</p>
<p>If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the  frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos <em>v</em>.  Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.</p>
<p>A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative  assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an  ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in  question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision.  — Kingsley <em>v</em>. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.</p>
<p>Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional  guarantee. — Riley <em>v</em>. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR  1018.</p>
<p>Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated,  even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some  respects the best interests of the public. — State <em>v</em>. Board of Examiners,  274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.</p>
<p>When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the  Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. — (See 16  Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State <em>v</em>. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A.  630 Am. St. 459.</p>
<p>I cannot subscribe to the <em>omnipotence</em> of a <em><span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">state legislature</span></em>,  or that it is <em>absolute and without control</em>; although its authority should  not be <em>expressly</em> restrained by the <em>Constitution</em>, or <em>fundamental  law</em>, of the state. The nature, and ends of <em>legislative</em> power will  limit the <em>exercise</em> of it. This <em>fundamental</em> principle flows from  the very nature of our free <em>Republican</em> governments, that no man should be  compelled to do what the laws do not require, <em>nor to refrain from acts which  the laws permit</em>. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature  cannot do, <em>without exceeding their authority</em>. There are certain  <em>vital</em> principles in our <em>free Republican governments</em>, which will  determine and overrule an <em>apparent and flagrant</em> abuse of  <em>legislative</em> power; as to authorize <em>manifest injustice by <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">positive  law</span></em>; or to take away that security for <em>personal liberty</em>, or  <em>private property</em>, for the protection whereof the government was  established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a <em>law</em>)  contrary to the <em>great first principles</em> of the <em>social compact</em>,  cannot be considered a <em>rightful exercise of legislative</em> authority. The  obligation of a law in governments established on <em>express compact</em>, and on  <em>republican principles</em>, must be determined by the <em>nature</em> of the  power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I  mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an <em>innocent</em> action, or, in other  words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no <em>existing</em> law;  a law that destroys, or impairs, the <em>lawful private</em> contracts of  citizens; a law that makes a man a <em>judge in his own cause</em>; or a law that  takes <em>property</em> from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and  justice for a people to intrust a <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Legislature</span> with such powers; and, therefore,  it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The <em>genius</em>, the  <em>nature</em> and the <em>spirit</em>, of our State Government, amount to a  prohibition of <em>such acts of legislation</em>; and the <span>general principles of  law</span> and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and  punish; they may declare <em>new</em> crimes, and establish rules of conduct for  <em>all</em> its citizens in <em>future</em> cases; they may <em>command</em> what is  right, and <em>prohibit</em> what is wrong; but they cannot change  <em>innocence</em> into <em>guilt</em>; or punish <em>innocence</em> as a  <em>crime</em>; or violate the right of <em>an antecedent lawful private  contract</em>; or the <em>right of private property</em>. To maintain that our  Federal, or State, Legislature possesses <em>such powers</em>, if they had not  been <em>expressly</em> restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy  altogether inadmissible in our <em>free republican governments</em>. — Opinion of  Justice Chase in Calder <em>v</em>. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Duties of Congress</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOREIGN WARS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GUN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #23 Here are the powers granted to the Seat of the Government of the United States located in Washington D.C.. Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt;color: black">
<div>Fundamental #23</p>
<p>Here are the powers granted to the Seat of the Government of the United States located in Washington D.C..<br />
<span style="font-size: small"><br />
</span></p>
<pre><span style="font-size: small">Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Indian Tribes</span>;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money,
 regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix

 the
Standard
 of <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Weights and Measures</span>;

To provide for the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Punishment</span> of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and <span>useful Arts</span>, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant <span>Letters of Marque and Reprisal</span>, and make Rules concerning
Captures on <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Land and Water</span>;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
 the land and naval Forces;

To provide
 for
 calling forth the
 Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

<span style="font-style: italic">To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District</span><span style="font-style: italic">(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,</span> and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Legislature</span> of the State in which the Same shall be, for
 the
 Erection of
Forts,
 Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
<span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Constitution</span> in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof."
</span>(italics mine)

"...(not exceeding ten miles square...")--This protects the Seat from any
interference from local or State governments.  It is also the only area
where it can pass any laws outside of the parameters it is limited to
in this Constitution.

    <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;cursor: pointer">Eminent domain</span> does not appear in our Constitution. The practice of this
government declaring land inside a  States borders as Federal Land is fraud.
They have to have the permission of a State to do that. 

    Here is how you know that Tyrants have taken over our government.
When a government begins
 to
 regulate your personal behavior,
 Tyrants are hard at work taking your liberty. Citizen, it is what tyrants do--period!
Tyrants hold you in utter disdain.  To them, this is their planet and you are
only here to serve their needs.  You are to be herded and harvested like any other
animal here on earth.  As long as you serve their needs, you are allowed to exist.
Fall out of favor, and you can be eliminated--125 million in this century alone.

We are the first and oldest republic that civilization has ever seen.  We agreed we would
have the rule of law.  When government starts regulating your personal behavior,
then you end up with the rule of force, another name for tyranny.  Preachers will
follow this lead every time. 

    When laws are passed to regulate something people are going to do even if there is a
law against it, then enforcement is necessary.  The drug laws can not be enforced.
That means
 that
 <span>there is no limit</span> to the amount of force to enforce them.  Prisons have
rehab for the inmates that get hooked on drugs--IN PRISON! Think about where these drug
laws are leading to, A PRISON COUNTRY!

    More importantly, find in the above where this Federal Government was given
the power to regulate a citizen's personal behavior. As I have said before, if it is a war
on drugs, we should be fighting it with lawn mowers.  No, it is a war on our liberty--
WORLD WIDE!

"...<span style="font-weight: bold">foregoing</span> Powers..."  That is the limit of the ability of this government in D.C.
to make laws.
 It can only make laws to bring what is stated here in this article to fruition--period!

The transients occupying this government are playing the, "lets rule the people and
take their production to do it, under the guise of taking care of them." 

"Government will take away your Liberty under
 the
 guise of doing something
good for you."  <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Thomas Jefferson</span>

They are going to give you free health care.  Do that, and they now have
power over life and death.  Notice it isn't "medical" care, but "<span>Health Care</span>."
That means "MENTAL HEALTH."  The thought police come if you aren't complying my fellows.
Have an ice cold 'Thorazine Spritzer'for breakfast.

P.S. In the rest of the Constitution, government was granted one more duty to perform,
the power to make Treaties.  That comes to a total of twenty (20) duties this Federal
Government is to perform for the States.

Are you understanding the importance of our Constitution yet?

Citizen Conway</pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENVIRONMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GUN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #22 Amendment (article) IV &#8220;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size: 12pt;color: #000000">
<div>Fundamental #22</p>
<p>Amendment (article) IV</p>
<p>&#8220;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and<span style="font-family: monospace"> </span>effects, against <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">unreasonable searches and seizures</span>, shall not be violated, and no <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">Warrants</span> shall issue, but upon <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">probable cause</span>, supported by <span>Oath</span> or<span style="font-family: monospace"> </span>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&#8221;</p>
<p>How many times since the drug war does a cop search the perp because he has &#8220;probable cause?&#8221;  Read this Amendment again and pay close attention to what you have to have in order  to obtain a warrant&#8211;probable cause.  And what has to happen to get that warrant?  You have to take an oath in front of a Judge.<br />
The officer has to be very specific as to what he/she is going to seize and from where.  What happens if a cop swears an &#8220;oath or affirmation (if the if the officer is an atheist),&#8221; and gets a warrant to search  anything of yours?  If the officer lied about anything to obtain the warrant, the cop just committed perjury, a felony!  A cop cannot violate your <span>civil rights</span> any more than a criminal can.<br />
Shall not be violated&#8211;except on suspision of drugs?  Look hard, that says &#8220;shall not be violated.&#8221;  There are no exceptions there either.  An officer with a badge cannot violate your &#8220;persons, houses, papers and effects&#8221; ever.  Unreasonable searches are searches without a warrant.<br />
<strong>&#8220;PROB&#8221;ABLE</strong>, a. [L. probabilis, from probo, to prove.  See Prove.]</p>
<dd>1. Likely; having more evidence than the contrary, or evidence which inclines the mind to belief, but leaves some room for doubt.</dd>
<dd>That is accounted probable, which has better arguments producible for it than can be brought against it.</dd>
<p>&#8221;</p>
<p>Next time a cop pulls you over and threatens to get the drug dog, tell him that still doesn&#8217;t give him an excuse to search you and your vehicle.  The dog can only give him probable cause.  The dog can&#8217;t issue warrants.  Tell him that if the dog can&#8217;t tell the judge exactly what drug he read on, they still cannot get a warrant to search you or your car.  Remember that probable cause only gives them ability to get a warrant.</p>
<p>The <span>war on drugs</span> isn&#8217;t a war on drugs, if it were, we would be fighting it with lawn mowers.</p>
<p>Is this quote beginning to make sense you now?<br />
&#8220;A man that has been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given him cannot be enslaved.  It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.&#8221;<br />
<span>Ben Franklin</span></p>
<p>Citizen Conway</p></div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Conway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDUCATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL RESERVE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOREIGN WARS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FREE MARKET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT SPENDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GUN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MISC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #20 Second (article) Amendment &#8220;A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.&#8221; Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition: MILI&#8221;TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fundamental #20</p>
<p>Second (article) Amendment</p>
<p>&#8220;A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.&#8221;</p>
<p>Displaying <strong>1</strong> result(s) from the <strong>1828</strong> edition:</p>
<hr /><strong>MILI&#8221;TIA</strong>, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.</p>
<hr />That is the definition of a militia.  All able bodied men are, by law, required to train at certain times.  Otherwise, they are free to do as they wish.  They aren&#8217;t on our payroll unless they are called into service.  Here is what our Constitution says about our militia:<br />
Article I section 8: Congress shall have the power:</p>
<pre>"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;"

    Wait, I thought it was the FBI
 that
 executes the law of the land at places like Waco?
Just remember that the government in DC is not our government, and never has been.  It is
a central government.  Lets see, these things just in the 20th century have killed over
170,000,000 (that's million) of their own people.  First it disarms us, then it kills us.

    Our only hope of survival with one of these things is being armed with the latest
weapons.  So here we are, all men being called to duty.  Who is going to protect the
family?   Ladies, you need to be trained as well.

    When the powers here saw the fit that the Mexican Militias gave us, they acted fast in
1903 with this:</pre>
<h2>Militia Act of 1903</h2>
<p>The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was the result of a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment initiated by <a title="United States Secretary of War" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_War" target="_blank">United States Secretary of War</a> <a title="Elihu Root" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu_Root" target="_blank">Elihu Root</a> following the <a title="Spanish-American War" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War" target="_blank">Spanish-American War</a> of 1898 after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire <a title="United States military" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military" target="_blank">United States military</a>.</p>
<p>United States <a title="United States Senate" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" target="_blank">Senator</a> <a title="Charles Dick" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dick" target="_blank">Charles Dick</a>, a <a title="Major General" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_General" target="_blank">Major General</a> in the <a title="Ohio Army National Guard" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Army_National_Guard" target="_blank">Ohio National Guard</a>, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.</p>
<p>Today, the National Guard is a reserve force for the Federal standing Army.</p>
<p>“Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and opposed subjects.”  Leo Tolstoy (1893)</p>
<p>Dick ACT?  Congress has no power to alter our Constitution by passing an ACT!  It has to be an Amendment approved by the States.  Here is the supreme Courts ruling on &#8220;Acts.&#8221;</p>
<p>“An unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no right’s; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” &#8211;  U.S.  Supreme Court, Norton   V. Shelby   County 118-LL5, 425,442</p>
<p>Article 1 section 8,  Congress shall have the power &#8220;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;&#8221;</p>
<p>Here is what George Washington had to saqy about the military:</p>
<p align="center">&#8220;Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.&#8221;</p>
<p align="center">
<p>Have we grown so numb that we don&#8217;t remember what brought Russia down?  It was the money they lost fighting in Afghanistan.  Obama just asked Congress for another sixty billion to keep fighting this year alone.  We have been at it for seven years now.  We&#8217;re out front, and the elite are plundering both sides  behind the scenes.</p>
<p>300,000 barrels of oil a day unaccounted for in Iraq.  A gas pipeline being built across Afghanistan.  Are we going to prosper from any of this?  NEVER!</p>
<p>They are using our resources to steal their resources.</p>
<p>Next&#8211;How to Amend the Constitution</p>
<p>Citizen Conway</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

