<?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; MIND CONTROL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/category/mind-control/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>Is war with Iran now on the table?</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/14/is-war-with-iran-now-on-the-table/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/14/is-war-with-iran-now-on-the-table/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:10:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DR. RON PAUL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WAR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Readers, I was laying in bed and just could not sleep. I am literally sick to my stomach thinking that we are now going to go into Iran militarily. I predict this will happen soon if history is any indicator at all, which it usually is. I hope I am wrong. But what can [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Readers,</p>
<p>I was laying in bed and just could not sleep. I am literally sick to my stomach thinking that we are now going to go into Iran militarily. I predict this will happen soon if history is any indicator at all, which it usually is. I hope I am wrong.</p>
<p>But what can I do about it? Who can I tell to <strong>STOP</strong>?</p>
<p>The mainstream media and the Obama administration are really pumping up the war propaganda to feed to the American people to get them to back it, and reading comments online it looks like it is working&#8230;again.</p>
<p>I feel like I want to go to the White House with a megaphone and yell at the top of my lungs to STOP THESE SENSELESS WARS! STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! LET THEIR PEOPLE LIVE! I know where this would get me however, and that is in jail. My voice would not be heard because mainstream media would not cover that. It does not fit their &#8220;agenda.&#8221;</p>
<p>Seems they are trying to create yet another &#8220;false flag&#8221; operation to sell to those who are willing to buy it.</p>
<p>It is all based on lies. All of the information they are giving us about this so called &#8220;plot&#8221; to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by a failed used car salesman from Texas who has had a drinking problem in the past, a slew of unpaid parking tickets and a history of liking prostitutes and who also just happens to be an Iranian born citizen has no substance.</p>
<p>According to &#8220;intel&#8221; this guy worked with Iranian intelligence to hire Mexican drug cartel members for something like $1.5 Million to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC. I mean this part of the story alone makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I am not &#8220;intelligence.&#8221;</p>
<p>Think about that. You have a cartel that is making upwards of $40Billion a year delivering drugs, and they are going to risk an assassination on US soil, in Washington DC no less, which is the heaviest police staffed city in America for a measly $1.5Million? Well, I am not buying it. You shouldn&#8217;t either!</p>
<p>There are many friends and even the wife of Manssor Arabsiar, the man in question who was going to carry out this plot, who claim the guy was just an absent minded drunk who had lots of minor violations like unpaid parking tickets etc. but lacked the capacity to pull off anything of this magnitude.</p>
<p>And once again, like the case of US citizen Anwar Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen just weeks ago, they have nothing to show the American citizens or the media that proves any of what they are saying. Nothing! It is all based on &#8220;classified information&#8221; that we will never see. Does this not scare you? Does our President really have this much power? If you are not worried&#8230;you should be!</p>
<p>Manssor Arabsiar is currently being detained, and who knows how long that could be. This guy is a patsy for sure and we do not even know how he is being treated or if he has a lawyer or anything! It just seems that the government works in such secrecy these days and that too should not be acceptable. These people work FOR US, not the other way around.</p>
<p>Are they setting us up to go into Iran and then Mexico? What is going on here? Is anyone going to hold them accountable? Is ANYONE going to ask them the hard questions and DEMAND proof? Is all of this some elaborate plot to cover up the Fast and Furious incident?</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s say for argument sake this is all indeed true. Let&#8217;s say Iran did indeed plot to assassinate one of their enemies on our precious American soil&#8230;well did we not just do that with Awlaki? Do we have double standards? Are we to think we are the ONLY ones who can target our so called enemies for assassination on other nations soil? Is this the example we want to set around the world?</p>
<p>We are not making many friends in this world with our constant Empire building. If anything we are making us weaker and weaker as a nation because more and more people are going to hate us. Not for our freedom, but for the simple fact that we are occupying their land and forcing our &#8220;democracy&#8221; on them in the name of &#8220;peace.&#8221;</p>
<p>We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in these countries. What would we do if someone did that here? (see video below) We would not take it. We would stand up against it. Why do we not expect them to?</p>
<p>Many Americans just sit back and yell and scream for their blood like we are spectators at the Roman colosseum watching gladiators fight to the death. That is how I see this whole &#8220;war on terror.&#8221; Are we the Roman Empire? The Nazis? When does it end? When our economy completely crashes?</p>
<p>We need to get out of these wars. I want to let the Iranian people know right now that I do not condone any of this and I am sorry for the choices our government has made&#8230;I would have spread a message of peace by example, not militarily.</p>
<p>This is why we NEED Ron Paul. He has to become the next President of the United States as I feel any of the others will push the status quo and continue to weaken us as a nation so badly that we will soon be fighting World War III on our own soil, and I do not want to fight people who I have no issue with.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is the ONLY top tier candidate who wants to end these wars. All of the others believe that we need to continue to be the policeman of the world. We need to stand with him and put an end to this. He is our ONLY hope!</p>
<p>Some will say that one man cannot make a difference, but I know different. Look at what Ghandi or Martin Luther King accomplished. They had a message that they did not force on people&#8230;people took their message and made it their own. They did not follow these individuals, they walked beside them. We need to walk beside Ron Paul.</p>
<p>Watch this video as it speaks VOLUMES about how the nations feel that we continue to occupy.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/14/is-war-with-iran-now-on-the-table/"><em<You Can Click Here To View This Video.</em></a></p>
<p>I feel in my heart that this is the most important election of my lifetime and yours. The reason I feel this is because if we get even 4 more years of the same thing we have now, we are going to crash economically and spin into a depression like none we have ever seen making us defenseless. This is just like the Roman Empire when it fell. They expanded themselves right into failure. I do not want to be a citizen of another country&#8230;I want to keep THIS country&#8230;but if Ron Paul does not win, I fear we will lose it.</p>
<p><strong>Visit <a href="http://RonPaul2012.com">http://RonPaul2012.com</a> to learn more about this great man. We need your help and support. Join the ORIGINAL Revolution and lets restore our Republic before it&#8217;s too late!</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2011/10/14/is-war-with-iran-now-on-the-table/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</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>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>
		<item>
		<title>Second Amendment Part Two</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:02:15 +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[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #16 Second Amendment (second half) &#8220;&#8230;the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&#8221; This could be written today as, &#8220;&#8230;the right of the people to whine quietly and with restraint shall be tolerated.  Government shall reserve the power to beat you like a rented Mule if we get [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fundamental #16</p>
<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: #000000">
<div>Second Amendment (second half)</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&#8221;</p>
<p>This could be written today as, &#8220;&#8230;the right of the people to whine quietly and with restraint shall be tolerated.  Government shall reserve the power to beat you like a rented Mule if we get tired of this incessant whining.&#8221;</p>
<p>This limitation on the power of government is the one that the tyrants running the governments here fears the most&#8211;this is how it should be.  If we are going to exercise the right of self rule, then we have to be dangerous.  We have to let those that would rule over us know hat we reserve the right to stop them.<br />
The supreme Court just made a ruling about guns that the Commies are reveling over.  The case before  them was, &#8220;Heller V. Washington D.C.&#8221;  The Court ruled 4-3 that the people in <span style="font-style: italic">Washington D.C. </span>have the right to bear arms, but they can be regulated.  Now, those that want to take our power of self rule are using that decision as though our Arms can be regulated over the entire country.  They want to use this ruling to make all manner of laws regulating our arms and ammunition.</p>
<p>Article I section 8 defines the Area we call Washington D.C. and the power of the Federal Government to make laws (legislation) THERE!<br />
&#8220;Congress shall have the power;  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not to exceed ten miles square)&#8230;&#8221;<br />
(they could even make drugs illegal THERE)</p>
<p>The supreme Court ruling on &#8220;Heller V. Washington D.C&#8221; determined that the Federal Government could not pass a law  curtailing one of our rights even in a district (of Columbia) where they have been granted &#8220;exclusive Legislation.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Communist are running with this one as if it does apply to the entire country, it does not!  Go back and look again, it&#8217;s  &#8220;Heller V. <span style="text-decoration: underline">Washington D.C.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>&#8220;A man who knows and prizes the rights that God has given him cannot be enslaved.  It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.&#8221;  Benjamin Franklin</p>
<p>If the citizens of our once great country knew their rights, we would be laughing at the efforts of the tyrants to disarm us.  Here is the meaning of this part of the II Amendment:</p>
<p>&#8220;The <span style="font-style: italic">right</span>&#8221;<br />
&#8220;10. Just claim; immunity;  privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.</p>
<p>&#8220;of the<span style="font-style: italic"> people</span>&#8221;<br />
&#8220;1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc;cursor: pointer">London</span> or <span>Paris</span>; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.</p>
<div>
<dd>2.  The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.&#8221;</dd>
</div>
<p>&#8220;To <span style="font-style: italic">keep</span>&#8221;<br />
&#8220;2.  To have in custody for security or preservation.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;And <span style="font-style: italic">bear</span>&#8221;<br />
&#8220;3.  To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;<span style="font-style: italic">Arms</span>&#8221;<br />
&#8220;4.  In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;shall not be<span style="font-style: italic"> infringed</span>.&#8221;<br />
&#8220;1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.</p>
<div>
<dd>2.  To break; to violate; to <span style="text-decoration: underline">transgress</span>; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.&#8221;</dd>
</div>
<p><span style="font-style: italic">transgress</span><br />
&#8220;1.  To pass over or beyond any limit; to surpass.&#8221;</p>
<p>Now you know what &#8216;we&#8217; meant by the Second Amendment.</p>
<p>These definitions came from &#8220;Webster&#8217;s 1828 Dictionary.&#8221;  Don&#8217;t let anyone use the argument that the Constitution is a legal document so you have to use &#8220;Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary&#8221; to define the terms.  The first edition of that wasn&#8217;t published until 1891, fully 100 years after our Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.</p>
<p>Citizen <span>Conway</span></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill of Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-15/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-15/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:59:16 +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[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #15 Our Bill of Rights. The Constitution was ratified in 1789.  The Bill of Rights was ratified and passed into law in 1791.  These ten Amendments are superior to the Constitution and the government it put in place to serve the collective needs of the States.  We will henceforth refer to them as the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table style="height: 100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="10"></td>
<td valign="top">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fundamental #15</p>
<p>Our Bill of Rights.<br />
The Constitution was ratified in 1789.  The Bill of Rights was ratified and passed into law in 1791.  These ten Amendments are superior to the Constitution<br />
and the government it put in place to serve the collective needs of the States.  We will henceforth refer to them as the BOR in this writing.<br />
The BOR has its own Preamble and the entire list has ten &#8220;Articles.&#8221;  The entire set of Articles is considered one set.  Referring to them as individual Amendments implies that they are a part of the Constitution so that one can be attacked or ruled on by the supreme Court at a time.  No, you cannot attack one without attacking them all.  Always bear in mind that the enemies of mankind here on Earth are very cunning and thorough.<br />
The BOR was patterned on the rights that George Mason wrote down for the State of Virginia in 1776.  George Mason had the same stature as Jefferson, Franklin ET all.  He was the driving force in getting James  Madison to put  our restrictions on government to paper.<br />
Understand that these aren&#8217;t suggestions, and are not privileges granted to us by the revered &#8220;Founding Fathers.&#8221;  These are our rights that we demanded be written down to severely limit this government.  Look at them and you will see that they are all about what government cannot do.<br />
Then for good measure, we threw in the tenth Article that said, &#8220;if we forgot anything, you can&#8217;t do that either.&#8221;</p>
<p>Article  Ten:<br />
&#8220;The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Remember, this is a statement of our RIGHTS!    What right do you see here?  We have a right to have a limited government.  We have a right to be able to be self governed.  What made us so great was the fact that we weren&#8217;t saddled with an over bearing central anything.  We had a small government, and we could keep our own production.  We have a right to have a government that obeys the letter of the law we laid down in the Constitution.  The central government has specific duties to perform and no power to grant itself any others.</p>
<p>&#8220;Nor prohibited by it to the States&#8230;&#8221;  This is a refrence to Article I section 10 of the Constitution that limits the power of the States to act independently or pass an ex post facto Law etc..</p>
<p>Article IX &#8220;The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just turn back to the recent past to Hillary Clinton saying that there isn&#8217;t anything in the Constitution guaranteeing us privacy&#8211;it doesn&#8217;t have to be there, it is implied and you cannot say that if it isn&#8217;t spelled out in thesre ten articles, we don&#8217;t have it.  As long as our actions don&#8217;t violate common law, we are free to pursue (work) for that which makes us happy.  If there is no victim, there is no crime.</p>
<p>Article VII  &#8220;Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.&#8221;</p>
<p>The criminal outfit that stomps all over this right is the outlaw IRS.  Yes, the IRS  is operating here illegally, and has been since 1913.  100% penalties is their order of the day.  Massive interest is also levied by them.  The prohibiting of cruel and unusual punishment was specifically aimed at being drawn and quartered.  The Bush Administration broke this law when they tortured foreign prisoners.</p>
<p>Here is the Preamble that government doesn&#8217;t want you to know and understand</p>
<p>Effective December 15, 1791<br />
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.</p>
<p>PREAMBLE<br />
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.</p>
<hr size="3" />Here is the significance of this Preamble and the original Bill of Rights.  You are going to begin to feel your power after you understand this.  This preamble means that this is a document that stands on its own.  In the original Bill of Rights, these Articles are not referred to as &#8220;Amendments,&#8221; they are called Articles. Look at the Constitution and you will see that there are &#8220;Articles&#8221; that break down into &#8220;sections&#8221; explaining particular duties and restrictions in each.</p>
<p>Why is this important to your understanding?  The section of the Constitution that deals with the duties of the supreme Court states:</p>
<p>&#8220;The judicial power shall extend to all cases:  In law and equity arising under this constitution.  The laws of the United States , and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority.</p>
<p>To all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.</p>
<p>To all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction</p>
<p>To controversies to which the United States shall be a party.</p>
<p>To controversies between two or more States.</p>
<p>Between a state and Citizens of another State.</p>
<p>Between citizens of different States.</p>
<p>Between Citizens of the same state claiming land’s under Grants of different states, and between a State, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”</p>
<p>Equity: Justice according to natural law or right; specifically, freedom from bias or favoritism.</p>
<p>The supreme Court was given the authority to rule on all questions of law and equity arising in the Constitution.  At the time of this authority there was no Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights wasn&#8217;t added until two yeas later  That means that because these rights are superior to the constitution the supreme Court doesn&#8217;t have the authority to define them for us.  That is our job.</p>
<p>There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed.  For many years these words were &#8220;omitted&#8221; from copies of our Constitution.  Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the Articles can be changed by the will of the people.  By this line of reasoning the  Articles are open to interpretation.  This is a clever deception.  The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments.  The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution.  The Constitution restricts the powers of government.  The deception is that the government can interpret  all of the Articles and the Constitution itself.  Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.</p>
<p>End the deception.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="10"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td width="10"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-15/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senators</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:55:35 +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[HUMAN RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIND CONTROL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROPERTY RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. CONSTITUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fundamental #14 Get ready for a laugh at this one perpetrated by our conquerors.  Yes, we have been defeated. We actually never stood a chance against the type of warfare waged on our little Republic. We have and are still the spoils of war.  We have and are still nothing more than an object of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fundamental #14</p>
<p>Get ready for a laugh at this one perpetrated by our  conquerors.  Yes, we have been defeated.</p>
<p style="text-align: left">We actually never stood a chance against the type of warfare waged on our little Republic. We have and are still the spoils of war.  We have and are still nothing more than an object of plunder.  All that, and this:<br />
 1913, XVII Amendment.</p>
<p>The next section in our Constitution concerns Senators.  It is Article I section 3:</p>
<p>&#8220;The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chose by the Legislature thereof&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>This is how Senators were originally sent to the Congress.  You will find the same clause in the Confederate Constitution.  The Senators are supposed to represent the sovereign State governments.  They have to be at least thirty years old, a citizen for nine years and an inhabitant of the State from which they are chosen.</p>
<p>If you have conquered a nation, then you have to consolidate power into one so that you can dictate the plunder.  Senators that represent the States interest have to go.  They just used an Amendment for this purpose  (this is the laugh part). First off, the Congress cannot even propose anything that changes how Senators are chosen.  Here is the law:</p>
<p>Article I</p>
<p>Section 4<br />
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators&#8221;. (bold mine)</p>
<p>This says that Congress cannot change how Senators are Chosen.  Did Congress ever have the authority to propose the XVII Amendment?  NO!    They  are  told here that they don&#8217;t have the authority.  They did it anyway in the form of an Amendment.</p>
<p>Amendment XVII:<br />
 (1913) &#8220;The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected  by the people thereof&#8230;&#8221; <br />
 Under this, the Senators answer to the same constituents as the House.  The Senate is now a rubber stamp to the House.  No more separation of powers.</p>
<p>Here is how an amendment works: <br />
Article I, section 5, states that when an Amendment is ratified by three fourths of the Legislatures of the States shall become part of the Constitution.  This does not compute Will Robinson.</p>
<p>Article I, section 5, States: &#8220;&#8230;and no State without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.&#8221;     OK, 100 percent of the States would have to ratify this Amendment to change the make up of  the Senate, not three quarters.  We know for a fact,   that six  States did  not ratify this amendment  and the great State of Florida rejected it out of hand. (suffrage is a vote)      What propaganda was used to float this gunship?</p>
<p>The US Congress put out that the state Legislatures were corrupt.  Seventy one times before 1913, the State Legislatures were in a tie concerning Senators. The propaganda said that that is when the bribes began to fly.  In order to have what we have today, each State would have to have given up their suffrage on the Senate Floor.  An Amendment was not the effective venue.      Although all this chicanery is forbidden by our Constitution, this happened next:  This did not stop the Secretary of State (that&#8217;s an employee) , William Jennings Bryan from declaring it (XVII Amendment) ratified and   passing it into law.  Only the president can <em>sign</em> an  Amendment into law.   What Bryan did is like having the White House janitor pass   an Amendment into law.</p>
<p>Article I section 7 “…Every Bill which  shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States ; if he approve he shall sign it…”      We are the vanquished, we were overthrown with gobs of bribe money, assassins and secret governments within our visible government.</p>
<p>Just think of the amount of money that a Senator has to raise to run a Statewide campaign&#8211;can you say corruption?</p>
<p>Citizen Conway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

