No products in the cart.

News

Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians

Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians

This article was originally published at Zero Hedge

While the “use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. As one defense official proclaimed, “this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens.” Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its “quelling civil disturbances” totalitarianism…

As The Washington Times reports,

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

There is one silver lining (for now)…

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

And the full Directive is below…

Dod

0

ldiffey

Oath Keepers Merchandise

34 comments

  1. There was no need to send in the Military to the Bundy’s.

    The militia’s aggressive behavior towards anyone not inline with their thinking was enough to completely disorganize the unity that once existed.

    Let this be a hard lesson learned for all.

    1. First and foremost The Oath Keepers need a SOP spelling out what we will and will not do when we are mobilized in the future.

    2. Second any other group will needs to understand what we represent and what we will not take part in. And that we do not fall under their direct command nor take orders from them unless arranged to do so.

    3. All involved need to understand that one head can be chopped off easily but many heads are hard to kill.

    4. Before any action is taken in a co-op with different groups, the most important thing is unity with the end in mind. It is important to remain separate yet cohesive. Having a good PR. man out in front before problems arise which I promise they will.

    I just returned from the Bundy’s, and found that the people there are still fighting among themselves, there are a few very good people that keep their mouths shut and serve the effort by there actions.

    When I openly told some that I was an Oath Keeper, most did not care, but a few had bad things to say and made accusations. I could have replied in defense and caused disunity but I decided that at this point my actions would speak louder than any words, and so I went to work trying to help where I could. Sometime a thick skin and honest action will say more than bringing out the obvious facts.

  2. Let’s be real for a moment, this will be a war, in war people die. To the military what side are you on an unconstitutional lying commander and chief? Or are you for the Constitution for which you took an oath to protect? Your conscience should be your guide, not your career and not your paycheck. The Republic lies in your decision.

  3. Thank you Charlie Brown. I owe no allegiance to the scum bag president. I will not let this country down.

  4. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson

  5. All those involved with the Bundy standoff need to seriously think about what Ben Franklin said “Either we all stand together or we all hang separately”. That incident could have started a civil war in this country if a shot had been fired by either side. If we are to defeat obama, and the scum that would fight for him, then we must stand together with a common goal.

  6. I’m confused! Is there a defined breaking point? or is it down to whom ever shoots first? Every day the rate of erosion is increasing, when or how will the end-point be defined? I am an OK member and LOST, what is my guide, just backing the Oath I took?, but how, when and in what way, screw the ballot box.

  7. I’m with you Ron the liberal media is pushing for all it is worth to not let a good crisis go to waste, as in Santa Barbera I don’t see how a war can be avoided at this point, but like you I don’t wan’t to start it,yet I don’t want them to get the upper hand either. Pretty confusing. And you military guys I know you can see that your commander and chief does not give a tinkers damn about you, so stand strong and defend the constitution and your contrymenl we are counting on you.

  8. The most important point that many here have forgotten or did not know is that ALL unconstitutional laws, bills, etc are NOT lawful (legal) here, they are “color of law”, pretend laws created by officials by officials but with no lawful authority. Every time one is written and invoked the people involved should be immediately arrested, charged with treason and other criminal and civil offenses.

    “To the military what side are you on an unconstitutional lying commander and chief? Or are you for the Constitution for which you took an oath to protect?”

    they were REQUIRED as part of the contract agreed to when they took the office or position they occupy to take this Oath and keep it, or one similar to it:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Notice that the most words describe exactly what they are to do for the US Constitution before anything else, including following orders of US presidents and/or orders of those above them or the duties of the position or office they will be occupying. Also notice that “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is joined in the same sentence with “and the orders of the officers appointed over me”, that is how low on the priority scale those presidential orders are compared to the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it. Plus that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” is mentioned because it requires ONLY lawful orders to be followed. So as many in the US Military found out before, THEY are held accountable for their actions following orders or not because they are REQUIRED to know what the oath says and MEANS.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.
    This quote might make it clear for many who do NOT understand that we do not give our loyalty to ANY person serving within the government. Those who serve within our governments are there to carry out the duties assigned to the branch in which they occupy a position – they are SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES with assigned duties admittedly expensive one with inflated egos. (caps are mine)

    “God provided that in this land of liberty, OUR POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE SHALL RUN NOT TO INDIVIDUALS, that is, TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, NO MATTER HOW GREAT OR SMALL THEY MAY BE. UNDER HIS PLAN OUR ALLEGIANCE AND THE ONLY ALLEGIANCE WE OWE AS CITIZENS OR DENIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUNS TO OUR INSPIRED CONSTITUTION which God himself set up. SO RUNS THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, NO LOYALTY TO THE MAN HIMSELF.
    In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. THIS PRINCIPLE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IS BASIC TO OUR FREEDOM. IT IS ONE OF THE GREAT PRINCIPLES THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS “LAND OF LIBERTY” FROM OTHER COUNTRIES”. J. Reuben Clark

  9. Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

    There is NO LEGAL (lawful) standing army until the Congress declares war. US presidents are Commander in Chief when the Militia is called, and until until the “standing army” can be out together and called forth when and if needed.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNTIED STATES…”

    James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    War can ONLY be declared by the congress. NO standing army until a war is called, the Militia of the several states are the only ones constitutionally assigned those duties. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    – Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our counties, states, nation until and unless a war is declared by the congress. It does so here in US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11 (“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”)

    The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.);

    And here in Clause 15 (“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”);

    And again here in Clause 16 (“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”).

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them…”

    Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

    It flat out says that there is NO STANDING MILITARY – they are forbidden here, allowed for a specified time ONLY unless the congress declares war – in Clause 12 (“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”).

    James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” Madison was not alone in this belief.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars (standing army) may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

    The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

  10. Sorry, this should read like this with the quote at the end:
    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

  11. Cal;

    Indeed. When I felt it necessary to refresh my memory on the definition of ‘Defend’, I looked at the on-line M-Webster results and see the very first is (short section) “to fight in order to keep”, but then I see the following two after this which is surprisingly what I feel most feel they need or are trying to do. Again (short section) “to fight or work hard in order to keep”, presenting one with an escape and fully embody “work’, vote, rally etc.
    Then the third (short section) “to speak or write in support of”, and there is a large amount of this taking place showing no observable gain.

    I myself feel that the Constitution has and is being fully violated and ask my same question, what is the end point or trigger to change this. From what you rightly posted, the points of action have long past? Am I correct?

    So I feel myself, it is already over, it appears everyone has taken the easiest and least self-detrimental or self-sacrificing definition of “Defend”.

    Thank you for the very informative and meaningful post.

  12. Open letter to President Obama: On Using U.S. Military Forces Against We The People

    May 29, 2014 By Geoff Ross 3 2728

    soldier with civilians

    Dear President Obama,

    I understand you considered using U.S. military force against militia forces at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Well golly we are shaking in our boots. You understand this would have been in direct violation of the the 1878 “Posse Comitatus Act” and an act of war against “We the people”.

    The Posse Comitatus Act states:

    Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    This would also explain the purging of our military at the highest levels. I guess these purged commanders refused to comply with your request to shoot upon the American people if called upon to do so by YOU! Well you fired over 200 of these brave patriots and now they are 100 times more powerful as armed private citizens. You made a huge mistake.

    Mr. President, you considered a military attack against the militia at the Bundy Ranch by applying the unconstitutional Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” which was issued by the Pentagon on December 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.” To continue it states:

    “Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,”

    The directive then states.

    “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

    The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

    “Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,”

    Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

    The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. The full text of the directive may be found on the Pentagon website.

    So why did a U.S. official, a man who works in the White House state that you considered but then rejected deploying military forces under this directive during the recent standoff with our militia at Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s home?

    Mr. President, why did you cave in and not fire upon the militia members at the Bundy ranch? Why did you order the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) a federal, fascist like, militarized unit to stand down?

    You must have seen the light and realized you would lose this fight. You would then have been arrested and impeached for crimes against the U.S. Constitution, charged with the murder of innocent Americans and you probably would have started a Second American Revolutionary War.

    We the people will not permit such folly. The Second Amendment is probably the only thing keeping your progressive/socialist policies in check. It kept Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japanese out of our nation during World War II. Now its keeping you in check too. Agreed? Our founding Fathers were wiser than we could ever imagine, and you are the newest iteration of the Communist – Fascist – Marxist ideology they prepared us for.

    Mr. President, defense analysts across this nation are watching you very closely and they state you have built tactical armed military units within non-security-related federal agencies. You have created Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams within the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Internal Revenue Service and the Education Department, etc., etc., etc.

    Why are you doing this Mr. President and why is the Congress allowing you to do this? Where is Speaker John Boehner? There is ZERO leadership in the Congress for the people.

    The militarization of federal agencies is in full swing and the White House continues to launch psychological Saul Alinskyesque attacks upon U.S. private citizens’ regarding ownership of firearms despite the fact that Americans are law-abiding citizens.

    Where is the Congress of the United States? We paying them $175,000 a year for what, exactly? To sit around while the BLM, IRS, DHS and other federal agencies build armies against we the people? It is time for Speaker Boehner get off the fence and start writing a bill to disarm all of these federal agencies. DO IT NOW or blood will be spilled, American blood! Congressman Miller get off your seat and stand with the people! Write the bill, pass it and get it through the U.S. Senate.

    I called the White House National Security Council direct line for an answer but your team won’t comment to me. What are you hiding Mr. President?

    I am glad Mr. President you chose wisely and abandoned your attempt to shoot our Constitutionally legally amassed militia forces in Nevada. The outcome of such a battle would be a huge loss for the government. Trust me. There are more of us than you and we are not afraid to protect the Republic legally and constitutionally under all Amendments the Founding Fathers entrusted us with.

    God Bless America and shame on the Congress for not protecting us. I guess it up to us. This is why more guns and ammo are being bought by American men and women. They are going to need them one day it appears. Mr. Obama is preparing a war against we the people.

    Working off facts and not hear-say on this issue, I believe I am 99.9% right.
    http://drrichswier.com/2014/05/29/open-letter-president-obama-using-u-s-military-forces-people/

  13. Sen. Ted Cruz: 41 Democrat Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment!’

    May 24, 2014 By Matthew Burke

    Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer and Majority Leader Harry Reid

    Senator Ted Cruz stung Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), and 40 other Democrats, saying that the Democrat-controlled legislative body wants to “repeal the First Amendment.”

    “I’m not making this up,” said Cruz, speaking at the Family Research Council event on Thursday. “Senator Chuck Schumer has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority, to regulate political speech,” Cruz told the audience, who sounded quite disgruntled to hear the news (Watch Video Below).

    Cruz then explained why Democrats are pushing for the anti-free speech measure:

    “Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done. They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth. And it makes their lives inconvenient when they’re not standing for principle and actually that’s pointed out back home.”
    Cruz went on to explain that the amendment, which has 41 co-sponsors (all Democrats) would specifically protect organizations like the New York Times, but would be an attack on religious liberty and would “muzzle” citizens from “saying things that government finds inconvenient.”

    WATCH BELOW:

    h/t: CNS News

    NOTE: Because of several comments on this story indicating they would like the list of Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, we are providing the list below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (alpha order by last name):
    1.Tammy Baldwin (WI)
    2.Mark Begich (AK)
    3.Michael Bennet (CO)
    4.Richard Blumenthal (CT)
    5.Cory Booker (NJ)
    6.Barbara Boxer (CA)
    7.Sherrod Brown (OH)
    8.Benjamin Cardin (MD)
    9.Thomas Carper (DE)
    10.Christopher Coons (DE)
    11.Richard Durbin (IL)
    12.Dianne Feinstein (CA)
    13.Al Franken (MN)
    14.Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
    15.Kay Hagen (NC)
    16.Tom Harkin (IA)
    17.Martin Heinrich (NM)
    18.Mazie Hirono (HI)
    19.Tim Johnson (SD)
    20.Angus King, Jr. (ME)
    21.Amy Klobuchar (MN)
    22.Edward Markey (MA)
    23.Robert Menendez (NJ)
    24.Jeff Merkley (OR)
    25.Barbara Mikulski (MD)
    26.Christopher Murphy (CT)
    27.Patty Murray (WA)
    28.Jack Reed (RI)
    29.Harry Reid (NV)
    30.John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
    31.Bernard Sanders (VT)
    32.Brian Schatz (HI)
    33.Chuck Schumer (NY)
    34.Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
    35.Debbie Stabenow (MI)
    36.Jon Tester (MT)
    37.Mark Udall (CO)
    38.John Walsh (MT)
    39.Elizabeth Warren (MA)
    40.Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
    41.Ron Wyden (OR)
    CORRECTON: Please note that the above article mentioned all co-sponsors as Democrats. Actually, there are 40 Democrats and one admitted socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. We apologize for the error.

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/24/sen-ted-cruz-41-democrat-senators-want-to-repeal-the-first-amendment/

  14. @ Ron, “… I myself feel that the Constitution has and is being fully violated and ask my same question, what is the end point or trigger to change this. From what you rightly posted, the points of action have long past? Am I correct?”

    I feel that we are going to have a tough time making everyone follow the US Constitution. I believe that those in office fear its implementation because they will lose power, they will lose money earned through corruption, they will also spend much time in jails if not receive the death penalty, etc.

    I do not feel that our nation is at an end. Go to tenthamendmentcenter.com and look at what all the states are doing to counter much of this, even California. People have been taught that the only government that “matters” is the federal, and that is incorrect. The states and the feds work together in our compound type of government, but on mainly different issues.

    The federal government was created to have a central agency representing each state and the people in that state in mainly foreign affairs, and to see that the states traded fairly with each other. There has been much usurpation in a bid for more power by the feds, which the states, the people, did not counter as they are required to do.

    The commerce clause is used a lot to “justify” what is done by the feds, but it is a lie, a “color of law” put into place to deceive the people because an or many official(s) created it.

    James Madison; basically the interstate and foreign commerce clauses were not intended, nor construed, to vest in Congress equivalent powers when regulating domestic and foreign commerce: “I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.”

    Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”  

    “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” Madison, Federalist 39

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way: The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

    You also mentioned that we cannot trust the ballot box. We can, IF we get rid of all machine voting, they are VERY easily corrupted (http://blackboxvoting.org/). All counts at every level done by hand, in full view of the public, and verifiable.

    No parties (factions), as they are corrupted (able). Instead of funding wars we fund EQUAL time to ALL candidates to debate and to address the issues state and federal. That takes the $$ equation out of a big part of politics and allows WORTHY people to run who would not have the funds to now, not just the monied or the “bought and paid for”.

    But it IS up to us.

    Oh, when you go read your state Constitution online, do not be surprised if a treasonous scum has changed or added to it other then what it really said. Something along the order of “The federal government is the great pooh bah and commander of the USA and all states are below them” – small, VERY small exaggeration.

    “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People.” George Washington

  15. Local news in GA, infant 18 months seriously injured with a flash grenade blown up in face in baby crib on a no knock entry. DA getting involved.

  16. Obummer is a clear and present DANGER to National Security.
    The man is power drunk, DELUSIONAL, Mentally Unstable, and a TRAITOR
    to All that has Traditionally been America. TYRANT Thug wanna be.

    Why has he not been IMPEACHED and ARRESTED for TREASON? Why?

    Damn the BOUGHT Off: Politicians, Pentagon level Generals, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    for NOT HONORING their duties and Oath to their office and Oath to the American people.

    Trading 5 Gitmo prisoners for a Deserter.
    TREASON. Impeach and Arrest these Obamunista NWO Banker controlled Communist/Fascist.

  17. If local/state law enforcement can’t control a situation then they have a revolution on their hands.
    That is the right of the people.
    If the U.S. military steps in they have a civil war on their hands.
    This directive basically authorize the military to engage in a civil war against the people.

  18. VIRTUOUS GOVERNMENT
    There are two ways of government.
    One is to be cunning, to act with guile,
    and to contrive to cheat the people.
    When this way is used to rule,
    the people grow in cunning,
    and contrive to cheat the ruler.
    The second way to govern the land,
    is to do so without contriving.
    People so governed are truly blessed,
    for they are governed with virtue,
    and virtuous government is fair to all,
    thus leading to unity.

  19. INJURING THROUGH GREED
    People starve
    because the government
    taxes them to death.
    People rebel
    because the government
    tries to run their lives.
    People act like life is meaningless
    because the government
    takes everything they have.
    People who know how to enjoy life
    are wiser than people who value their lives.

  20. Bad News: A Storm is coming, very likely a bad one.
    Good News: The Feds are outnumbered,and in disarray spiritually, mentally and philosophically.
    If Barry Soetoro,his handlers and enablers believe that imported foreign mercenaries will make up for Posse Comitatus violating domestic military shortcomings,I have a Christmas story that I’d like to relate about Hessians encamped at Trenton a while back.
    Please note that if a rag tag bunch of really pysst off, left handed butt scrapers that inhabit mountains and crappy excuses for cities can thwart superior imperialistic military forces from the time of Alexander up through The Brits,USSR and The USA; can not a dedicated, really pysst off collection of American patriots do the same?
    Oh, and then there’s the whole American revolution thing…up against the most powerful military at the time…mismanaged by imported from Germany rulers and their corrupt bureacrats. Remind you of any particular imported ruler and his stinking crew of crooks and liars?
    We are now living within the ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
    So,the whiners that carp about Helos and Armor defeating civilian small arms and ingenuity are going to have to find something else to cry and sniffle about, Yes?

  21. @ Futuro, “Oh, and then there’s the whole American revolution thing…”

    We are NOT the revolutionaries changing our legitimate government, those serving within the federal government are doing so in a silent, hidden, secretive, TREASONOUS way. WE are DEFENDING OUR LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT FROM THE TRAITORS & Domestic Enemies of the USA, and foreign troops and mercenaries on US soil.

    We are the DEFENDERS of our nation, our people, our US Constitution, Our Constitutional Republic – OUR hard won FREEDOM!!

  22. Check out these articles. After Obama publicly spoke about Australia’s gun laws and the fact they haven’t had any mass shootings since there are many who feel that was a prelude to do the same thing that was done in Australia. Well, the reason we have mass shootings is due the false flags created by Obama. He couldn’t pass gun control through congress so it is suspected he will try it through executive order. However, by law, he cannot end the 2nd amendment without congress so he’ll continue with the false flags until the people rise up and demand it. The mass shootings have been orchestrated by Obama to sway public opinion so that he can use an executive order to ban ALL guns.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/sandy-hook-redux-obama-officials-confirm-that-it-was-a-drill-and-no-children-died_062014

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/10/is-22-june-2014-about-to-be-a-date-that-will-live-in-infamy/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/13/sandy-hook-redux-obama-officials-confirm-that-it-was-a-drill-and-no-children-died/

  23. DoDD 3025.18 states that “use of unmanned aircraft systems is not authorized, unless specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense”. At the Bundy Ranch standoff, UAV’s were in the air, and the BLM had specifically requested assistance from the military, per DD 3025.18. Fortunately, no authorization was given for either. But note, too, that “drones,” not authorized, were nonetheless deployed.

  24. Harassment of citizens by military members at the behest of sociopath cops, DA’s and or any so called authority figures has been going on since the nineties. Many military members are associated with civilian gangs who racketeer funds from various sources including little widow ladies million dollar accounts many using conservatively dressed young women who ‘claim’ to be involved in ‘heroic’ efforts to bring justice to some people who ‘somehow’ have managed get away with something or another. Of course most of the stories are fiction to have an easy job with great layover benefits with other members of the gang. Military members have even gone so far as to harass veterans of previous years while being told factious tales about the targets. Wanting the approval of female gang members and ex-fbi excop and other idolized police state figures low self esteem military members will do most anything they say. Many pundits including Alex Jones have stated if the dollar really co9llapses, many cities will tear them selves apart. Having studied quite small yankee towns whose main ‘dark side’ worship is dog eat dog and do whatever to get ahead, many small towns will have significant problems too, at least in yankeeland.

  25. Ambitious sociopath government workers, cops, DA’s etc,, have been suborning perjury and involved with sociopaths in the civilian sector for many year too, often to target Godly people because of the impulse given them when associating with the good to destroy the good as per directive of the ‘dark side’, may use fictitious tales ‘false witnessinhg’ in their sociopathic endeavors to destroy. This worshipping is what will really lead your country to it’s destruction, you will do it, as per instruction from the the dark spirit you worship. It is a shame.

  26. Indeed. Within the US, Ten Regions, Ten Military Commanders, Council of Ten Governors, The Rural Council, The ‘Peacetime Martial Law’ executive order, The NDAA, the DHS, INTERPOL, NSA. Proceeding 9-11 episode, Bush allowed for UN reconnaisance flights over the US. And. after, Bush adopted a ‘Pre-emptive Strike Policy which included the supplying of oil to the EU and Allies if current oil and gas supplies were cut off . Under the current occupation occupying DC and the WH, has anything changed????, the answer is NO. But, it rather escalated. So. what has Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, China and etc have to do with it?? The intentional death of the Federal Reserve Note (aka, US Dollar) America’s only phony fiat currency. It’s really concrete, the cementing of a world currency.

  27. RIGHTS
    The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
    “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
    This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
    “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
    and further…
    “Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
    Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
    When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
    “…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
    “Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
    Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    and…
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
    and…
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
    Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
    “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
    and…
    “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
    So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
    “…For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
    Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
    “Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.” Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
    and…
    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.” State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
    What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
    “The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
    and…
    “This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
    This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
    “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.
    and…
    “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
    There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
    “Personal liberty — or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution… It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
    As we can see, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
    “First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
    So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between…
    1. Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and…
    2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
    “[The roads]…are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.” Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
    “When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.” Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
    “[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.” Ibid.
    “We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate…the use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
    There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege.”
    Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a “privilege.”
     
    LICENSE
    It seems only proper to define the word “license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
    “The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.
    “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
    In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
    This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
     
    In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:
    “a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
    This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
    Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”
    “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
    The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
    Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
    How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her “blender” or “mixer?” They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

    SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
    A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
    “…the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use…” [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
    If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?
    “To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
     
    and…
    “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.
    Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.
     
    TAXING POWER
    “Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.
    The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied.” McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.
    The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
    “…It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax…a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars.” Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.
     
    and…
    “If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation.” Ibid., p.47.
    Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
     
    CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
    As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
    Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,
    “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
     
    and…
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, supra.
    Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.
    So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
    Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the “crime” of exercising his Right to Liberty.
    As we have already shown, the term “drive” can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen’s Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.
     
    CONCLUSION
    It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.
    “The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty — indeed they 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 purported to have been enacted to protect…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 the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.” Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.

    Finally, we come to the issue of “public policy.” It could be argued that the “licensing scheme” of all persons is a matter of “public policy.” However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
    “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.
    So even “public policy” cannot abrogate this Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

    Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.
    The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.
    Few know that the driver’s license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people’s actions or activities.
    Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
    No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.
    “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, 1784.

  28. This, in a way, is justice since for many years the righteous or sometimes just an easy frame have been targeted by ex-fbi, ex-cop (using their cop buddies) and the likes of investigative reporters in what must be construed as an invent a villain racketeering scheme, pretending ‘a cause’, they approach little old ladies with millions in the bank for ‘donations’ for their ‘fictional’ criminals and they do it with conservatively dressed young women and men in suits who claim this complicated probably criminal problem that they hope to solve by getting money for op’s for their gang that ‘specializes’ in these ‘heroic tries’ for justice that our poor justice system just couldn’t handle. In reality the gangs use a few facts to weave a fictional story with a fictional villain, all to gain access to funds to have an easy job with beautiful women co-conspirators and fulfill some imagined self importance. Politicians kids, judges kids and government sharkey kids who mostly see this as an easy job with beautiful ‘benefits’ are screwing with the justice system of this country and that justice system is the bedrock foundation of the defense of the nation and they and accomplices. DA’s etc,, etc,, are damaging it, are indeed terrorists against America and the communities that harbor them are fugitive communities.

  29. AND JAMES MADISON GRANTED THE PEOPLE THE FOLLOWING OBLIGATION: FED 46: Not only does Fed 46 demand the use of arms against the federal govt it also outlines proportioned numbers of an armed military against which a larger militia is formed:

    FEDERALIST 46: (Excerpt):

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
    of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
    government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of
    ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to
    little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of
    this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of
    time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the
    traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue
    some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the
    governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold
    the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be
    prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the
    incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a
    counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army,
    fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely
    at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far
    to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able
    to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best
    computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one
    hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the
    number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States,
    an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be
    opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
    their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
    common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their
    affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
    circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
    Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this
    country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility
    of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
    the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
    governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
    insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
    Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe,
    which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are
    afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid
    alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to
    possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who
    could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers
    appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
    and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the
    throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the
    legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of
    America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of
    which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary
    power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us
    rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce
    themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame
    submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and
    produce it.


    Edit

    Reply

    Share ›

    Avatar
    Duke • 18 hours ago

Comments are closed.