Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad

Constitutional Convention

Login or register to post comments Last Post 3143 reads   15 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 15 total)
  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 12:00am

    #1

    Michael Höhne

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 16 2008

    Posts: 57

    count placeholder

    Constitutional Convention

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center, recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.

I have to admit that I never heard about it before, but after reading it an doing some research, I’m more than ever wondering what is going on in the United States of America. And sadly enough, it all seems to make sense and it’s getting easier to connect the dots.

If 32 states have already agreed on it and only 34 are required to put the Constitutional Convention into power, then the United States of America is only 2 states away from losing its constitution. The resolutions made by eight states recently, trying to stop the US government from going further, now make more sense than ever.

If you don’t know what the Consitutional Convention is, then search for it on Google and YouTube.

Given that the following is true,

What the government doesn’t want you to know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0HWpa1k-2M&feature=related

We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70

U.S. Government Secret Plans Revealed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hep2fddDSU4&NR=1

Martial Law Plans Revealed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfXuk6aWJc&feature=related

Dennis Kucinich speaks about secret congress meeting!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnbFCbnB24&NR=1

Rep. Doggett Reacts to Rare Secret Session
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVdVynUjuI4&feature=related

Marshall Law FEMA CAMP plans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzF0W7-1CCc&NR=1

then what should I expect for the near future? Is it just another conspiracy theory, or is it really happening?

I know that Chris’ main focus is on financial stuff and he does such a great job. However, if the above is true and the financial crisis is just a vehicle to get the Constitutional Convention in place, and if it’s further true that such a Constitutional Convention would give unlimited powers to the government, while at the same time seizing natural rights, and further taking into account that this government, having unlimited powers, also has full control of the largest army and arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on earth, then financial problems won’t matter anymore.

Please, can a bunch of people living in the United States of America prove that I’m wrong? It’s fine to call me an idiot if that is required, but please tell me that I’m wrong.

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 12:49am

    #2

    gtazman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 23

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

I agree that a Con Con would be bad for our individual and our natural rights.  I found the following this article at: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216

December 16, 2008

Act now to reject Constitutional Convention

By Chuck Baldwin

My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble
a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional
Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S.
Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were
composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war
for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land
they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would
happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in
Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our
Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and
that is no hyperbole.

The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32
states have issued the call. The total number of states that are
required to enact the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are
only two states short of this disaster. As word of this potential
calamity began to surface, the effort stalled with the total states
issuing the call stuck at 32. With the election of Barack Obama,
however, supporters of a Con Con have been emboldened and are now
trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is currently in the
crosshairs appears to be Ohio.

States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these
states have since seen the error of their ways and have voted to
rescind their approvals. This fact, alone, should be enough to kill the
push for another Con Con, but don’t expect the powers that be to see it
that way. Therefore, it seems that if Ohio approves the Con Con, only
one more state would be required, and upon the call of that 34th state,
a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt, state number 34 is already
sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings, ready to act with
"lightning speed" to seal the deal.

Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention
is no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive
language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a
[Constitutional] Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress
determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen,
those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress
itself."

DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to
limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The
Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of
Big-Government liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the
founders’ Constitution — which was founded on the principles of Natural
Law that protects individual liberty — would be replaced with some sort
of "collective rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good."
At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would
be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental
abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would
be forever removed as a basis of all our nation’s laws and statutes.
The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be
gone forever.

Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!

In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything
they can RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of
Ohio is currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact
every person we know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them
to be sure to let their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is.
Residents and citizens of Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature
rejects the call for a Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it
would be wise for all of us who live in states that have not yet
ratified the call for a Con Con to contact our state legislators to
make sure that they understand the issue, and that they will do
everything in their power to resist any attempt to call for a
Constitutional Convention.

For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go to the American Policy Center web site at http://www.americanpolicy.org:80/sledgehammer/victory.htm

In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed.
What will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is
called and our U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a
completely new constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new
constitution? Which states will declare their independence from any
such new union? Or, will they all surrender their state constitutions
and go along with this Twenty-First Century New World Order — a New
World Order that will doubtless incorporate some form of North American
Community or Union?

It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those
states that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be
willing to declare their independence from whatever government would
evolve from a modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we
may need to resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would
probably not number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be
located on the East Coast.

I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick
and tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants
in both the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a
Constitutional Convention is called — and our U.S. Constitution is
wiped away or rewritten — are ready and willing to declare their
independence all over again. So, I issue the call: where are the new
Thirteen Colonies?

We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the
time for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our
ground will be upon us.

© Chuck Baldwin

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 12:50am

    #3

    gtazman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 23

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael,

I believe you fond the article first my bad.

Gary

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 07:31am

    #4

    caroline_culbert

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 254

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

[quote=Michael Höhne]

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/081216
…However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.

[/quote]

My question is:

What do "they" want to rewrite the Constitution with?  If we try to think about the possible scenarios that might happen then what is the best and worst case scenario that could happen if the Constitution was rewritten?  Will we end up like Iraq, with a (new) Constitution?  Would they rewrite the Constitution to put us (as many of us as they could) into concentration camps like we (U.S.) did with the Japanese?  Will the concentration camps be like those of Nazi Germany?  Do they really care about legislating with Justice and Democracy or do they want to impose an Aristocracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy (as so many other countries have)?  How could we possibly know what the outcome will be if we don’t know their motive(s)?  I just hope that I don’t end up in some camp or gassed. 

My logic tells me this:

America was created by replacing one Constitution for another.

The Constitution we have now is (in our opinion) better than the former.

So what makes us jump to the conclusion that a "new" Constitution will be necessarily worse than our current one?

From what I gather, from the American Revolution, is one faction branching off to begin independence brought about by thoughts of new ideals and grievances.

This faction had the intention of establishing power– a new power, to govern and rule, set by the new Constitution.

The people of the American Revolution traded one State for another.

Yet, I see many on this site that feel that we should not have a State even if it is sovereign.  Should we have a government (leader) or not?

(I am playing devil’s advocate because these are some of the questions that I have) 

 

 

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 11:00am

    #5

    Michael Höhne

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 16 2008

    Posts: 57

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

The difference is between individualism and collectivism. The following is from the United States Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And the next is from the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:

Article 1 

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.


Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

If some new type of constitution is to be written, then you can expect it to be similar to the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. So where’s the difference? The United States Declaration of Independence states that there are "certain unalienable Rights" and "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". It goes even further to say that it’s not only "their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

Though the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights declares similar rights in Article 1, Article 4 clearly states that those rights "are determined by law" and "the State may subject such rights" to "promote the general welfare in a democratic society".

In other words, the United States Declaration of Independence gives all power to the people, whereas the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights gives all power to the state. And do you see any real limitation in "the State may subject such rights to promote the general welfare in a democratic society"? A democratic society means that an action is acceptable if it does benefit the majority of people (> 50%). For instance, if you say that a group of people poses a security threat and that putting them into detention camps would make the life of most people safer and therefore "promote the general welfare", then you could argue that Article 4 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights gives you that power.

This may be an extreme example, but reality is that once it is declared that rights are determined by law, then such rights can be restrained by changing these laws, whereas the idea of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for/of the United States of America was written in the clear intent to prevent exactly this. If rights can be taken away from you, then it’s only a matter of time when it will be done. With the Constitution for/of the United States of America in place, it is difficult to form a World Government. Without the constitution or a new constitution based on collectivism, it is possible, because that would be to "promote the general welfare in a democratic society", for instance.

On http://www.freedom-force.org you will find a lot of related material.

 

 

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 02:39pm

    #6
    gregroberts

    gregroberts

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 06 2008

    Posts: 305

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

"Please, can a bunch of people living in the United States of America
prove that I’m wrong? It’s fine to call me an idiot if that is
required, but please tell me that I’m wrong."

You’re not wrong, I wish you were but you’re not. They will start with a global economic system and then through another crisis enact a global govt with the UN as head of the world govt.

Caroline

There is nothing wrong with our present constitution, it just needs to be followed.

Greg

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 04:00pm

    #7

    Michael Höhne

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 16 2008

    Posts: 57

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

You’re not wrong, I wish you were but you’re not. They will start with a global economic system and then through another crisis enact a global govt with the UN as head of the world govt.  

I share the same concerns and think that exactly this is the plan. However, what are we going to do about it? Nothing? Just let it happen? It’s time to act, and that goes far beyond reading. The mainstream media is not telling it, so the only way to raise concerns is by telling others and using the Internet to reach the public.

Sadly enough, according to Alexa, there are three "adult" sites in the 50 post popular web sites, so the ignorance of most people is a good reason why it may be too late. However, I don’t consider "doing nothing" an option and therefore changed the content on my blog accordingly. I may only reach a few thousand people, but it’s the best I can do today and I hope that people wake up in time.

 

 

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 04:42pm

    #8
    drb

    drb

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 11 2008

    Posts: 65

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

 

[quote]Given that the following is true,

[quote]What the government doesn’t want you to know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0HWpa1k-2M&feature=related

We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70

U.S. Government Secret Plans Revealed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hep2fddDSU4&NR=1

Martial Law Plans Revealed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfXuk6aWJc&feature=related

Dennis Kucinich speaks about secret congress meeting!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnbFCbnB24&NR=1

Rep. Doggett Reacts to Rare Secret Session
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVdVynUjuI4&feature=related

Marshall Law FEMA CAMP plans

[/quote]

then what should I expect for the near future? Is it just another conspiracy theory, or is it really happening? [/quote]

Michael,

The key words are "Given that the following is true".  Are you asking, or are you stating, that the referenced links are (all) ‘true’?

I’ve looked at some of these and find that at least one (Link #4: “Martial Law Plans Revealed)” is a blatant parody of news (anything produced by the Onion (Onion-Span) should be considered entertainment, not news – see the last few frames (“Congressional Forum on America’s Wild Goats – a disappearing nuisance”)   [p.s. I love the Onion – it is so irreverent]

Also – Link #2 (We are Under Martial Law…) pertains to ‘Congressional’ Martial laws which is parliamentary procedure to expedite voting without providing for the (normally) mandatory period of time allocated to actually ‘read’ proposed bills (see link)

[quote] Under the martial law procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation — so that Members can learn what they are being asked to vote on — are swept away.  Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with tens or hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted into the legislation behind closed doors.  This is the procedure that the Leadership intends to use to muscle through important bills in the next two days.[/quote]

The last link (Marshall [sic] Law FEMA CAMP plans)  had nothing to do with either Martial Law or FEMA camps.

Bottom line – there is a lot of ‘stuff’ on the net requiring hip boots to wade through. (Of course, this provides the ‘perfect’ environment to take actions against the populace in plain view without requiring the Government to resort to any amount of subterfuge Wink )

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 06:12pm

    #9

    DrKrbyLuv

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 10 2008

    Posts: 354

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael Höhne – I wish I could say otherwise but we are not witnessing a financial crisis in the United States, we are facing a financial coup de tat.  The central bankers are taking over, and they are moving out in the open in flagrant disregard for the needs and popular desires of the people.

I am glad that you have come to openly suspect the motives of our leaders.  It is difficult and uncomfortable to realize that our political and financial system is a sham – a deception, a giant and evil conspiracy of wealthy elite bankers to subjugate all of humanity.

The United States has been a great obstacle in that we have a constitution, bill of rights and we have a strong military.  We could simply say NO tomorrow and begin rounding up the perpetrators.  In recognition of these strengths, America must be financially ruined and any dissidents locked up under the tyranny of martial law.

Now that you know, you have an obligation – to help wake up others.  

By the way, this is battle has been going on through-out the history of our country – you might want to read this historical primer:

America’s Forgotten War Against the Central Banks

 

 

  • Sat, Feb 07, 2009 - 07:02pm

    #10
    GDon

    GDon

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 02 2008

    Posts: 46

    count placeholder

    Re: Constitutional Convention

Michael –

You are absolutely correct in the distinction you identify, between the Declaration of Independence / Bill of Rights / US Constitution, and the UN "Covenant".

You are correct, that the forces aligned against America’s premise, far outweigh those who understand it’s zenith in human existence under political systems.

You are correct that something "must be done" about it.

The Founding Fathers understood that Amerca’s premise and system, required a form of "insurance" in the worst-case scenario threatening the concept of individual liberty, and were explicit about what that insurance consisted of.

First –

The Declaration of Independence / BOR and US Constitution were the pinnacle of the Enlightenment Period – They proclaimed that the rights of the individual, and the extent of his liberty, are supreme, and are ordained from the highest authority imaginable (God), and that each individual was a "sovereign" – i.e., a "king".

The UN "Covenant" is nothing more than a re-hash of 50,000 years of human tribal history – i.e., that the rights of the individual are provided by the tribe, group, mob or king.  That the individual "is given" their rights by the tribe, mob, group or king, and that liberty is to be circumscribed by the tribe, mob, group or king.

Rewriting the US Constitution, is an action which can only be a regression – i.e., toward the history of individual liberty as secondary to the power of the mob.     No thanks.

So…You ask – "What can we do?"  "What action can we take?"

Rational people plan for worst-case scenarios – we have Health Insurance for illness, Auto Insurance for accidents, Life Insurance for our own demise, etc.

So – what is "America’s Insurance" against it’s own demise, and/or a move toward despotism?

I’m going to repeat part of an earlier blog, because I feel it answers the question.

As “America’s Insurance”, the Founders only included ONE Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which specified WHY it was necessary for inclusion – the 2nd Amendment.   (but perhaps not like you think – this is not a rebellious "call for arms", but for rational and legal Constituional action – read below).

Note that, the 2nd Amendment was the only, of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments of the Constitution), that gave an explicit reason why it was included and necessary –   to wit –  "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (i.e, the "reason"), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (the "right enumerated"). 

None of the other rights enumerated as Amendments state their reason for inclusion.   And this, because it was (when the SHTF), the most important.

Keep in mind that, as originally designed by the Founders, the "Government", including the method of ensuring that law was civil and obeyed, is/was US – all we sovereign citizens ("sovereign", in as each his own King).  

Further, the Founders felt that the security was to be ensured by a combination of all citizens, in concert and working with specialized law enforcement groups.  This was their definition of what comprised the "militia of the several states".

It was never intended that the general populus were NOT to be involved with "securing a free State" (their own), but instead, each individual citizen, to work in concert with local and state law enforcement, comprised and made up,  the "militia of the several states".  

The 2nd Amendment was specifically designed as a decentralized and local-to-bottom-up security system for insuring individual freedom.  Note that this is diametrically opposed to a "top-down" Federally-imposed police state – they are diametrically opposed in intention.

Also note that "the militia"  was never considered to be  the "standing military" (today often referred to as National Guard, US Military, Homeland Security forces, etc)   – in Constitutional times, full-time soldiers were referred to as "Regulars", and were not "militia".   There is a ton of historical writing on this very matter.

However, today, the word "militia" has been lampooned as right-wing, tin-foil "crazies" at odds with the process of securing and governing of our country.     Consequently, almost all State Governors are actually in defiance of the US Constitution, which, in combination with Founders writings, prescribed them the responsibility of ensuring that "the militia of the several states" were in a constant state of readiness.  

Of course, the concept was wiped aside and left to deteriorate. In this status, nothing could be further from what the Consitutional actually prescribed.

Today, those in government who are "at-odds" with Constitutional principles, who have been aware of the potential for monetary collapse for a LONG time, and are in control of a "top-down"political and martial oligarchy, with readiness to "impose" whatever version of law they may deem necessary, do NOT have the interests of the United States sovereign citizenry as a concern.

One person who speaks with as much expertise and credentials as available on these issues, is Dr. Edwin Vieira.  

He is a 4-degreed Harvard graduate PhD and Constitutional lawyer, having tried 4 cases before the US Supreme Court – winning 3, and is an expert on Constitutional matters, with particular focus on the Monetary Basis in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment. 

His website is here: http://edwinvieira.com/

He is currently working with State congressional bodies and law enforcement agencies, to see the revitalization of the true "militia of these several states", as was strictly prescribed by the Constitution.  

Why?

Because the Constitution put the 2nd Amendment in such esteem, so as to prevent a top-down "police state" from occuring – i.e., "for the security of a free state".    

The rationale of the Founding Fathers applies equally under a scenario of a monetary collapse, as from insurrection, invasion or general lawlessness.  

You can read Dr Vieira’s rationale (some of it) below, and in his book: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin187.htm

This activity is "something that can be done", before any such SHTF conditions.  

Your own State Congress can and should get involved, and the effort has been named after a similar function during the Founders times – i.e, The Committees of Safety, and can be found here: http://www.committeesofsafety.org/

You can read his articles and books on the same, and I highly recommend them.   He is often featured on many of Congressman Ron Paul’s website links, and they have worked together on many forums, to return to sound money, and American prosperity.

His articles on Constitutional money and congressional action to push for a return to Constitutional forms of money is also being organized and is in the works (the State of Indiana recently pushed a bill for a gold-based payment system).

The 2nd Amendment, with Constitutional revitalization of the "militia of the several states" (i.e., as the Constitution originally designed) is America’s final and ultimate insurance policy against it’s demise from both internal and external forces – pure and simple.

It is completely moral, legal, Constitutional and enforceable, and it is our right, as ordained from the ultimate source.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 15 total)

Login or Register to post comments