525 votes

#StandWithRand: Rand Paul Filibuster Update & Open Thread

Filibuster began at 11:47am ET March 6, 2013
Filibuster ended at 12:40am ET March 7, 2013


He quoted Greenwald and even mentioned Luke Rudkowski's question to Gibbs about al-Awlaki's kid.

Now he's saying it's not partisan, and his proof is that he voted for Kerry and Hagel even though he has almost nothing in common with their politics.

This man is playing chess.

Edit to Add: I was inspired to add this quote by the Doctor "Speak up, speak often and don't worry about those that at this point can not understand as they can never un-hear what we tell them." ~ Ron Paul

On Twitter: #StandWithRand

Quotes of the Day

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Go Rand Go!

...Run Rand Runnnnnnnn!!!!!

Jimmy Stewart got nothin' on Rand:

Somebody IS listening, Rand....Go Rand Go!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!


Where ya been? You missed out on a lot of fun on this thread during the filibuster. You would have enjoyed it!

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

When Rush Limbaugh...

gets on the Rand Paul bandwagon, we know something has changed. Rush supports the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, Homeland Security, etc., so he must be feeling a little heat from the Constitutionalists being he's supporting Rand.

Rand proved one thing, taking a stand of principle, in spite of the odds against you, can been a force for good in the world. Check out this post, "Rand Paul: One person can make a difference"


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

They all had to back Rand...

...because if they didn't, their cover would have been blown to all of their followers.

I think the right is too far left.


Are we all happy with the "acceptable" lines that have been drawn in this debate?

John Locke: "Men are so foolish that they take care to avoid wh

Quick Snippet of one of the arguments Sen. Rand Paul presented during the first hour of the Filibuster yesterday afternoon. This pretty much sums up what he said the entire night. I thought it was remarkable and courageous of him to stand up and defend our Constitution as one of the founding fathers would have. Genuinely remarkable!

Lewis Carol is fiction right?

When I ask the president can you kill an American on American soil it should of been an easy answer; It should have been an easy question; It should of been an resounding and unequivocal NO! The Pres. response: " I haven't killed anyone yet" and I have no intentions of killing Americans. [........but, I might kill Americans.] Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent of our rights? That we would allow the President to to say... He might kill Americans?

Some say he would never do this and say he is a good person.. I am not arguing he's not, because the law is there set in place for the day when angels don't rule government. John Madison said that the restraint on government was because the government will not always be run by angels. This has nothing to do whether the President is Democrat or Republican. Were this a Republican President, I would be here saying exactly the same thing. No single one person or politician should be allowed to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute and individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country! This isn't even new to our country. There are 800 years of English Law that our tradition was founded upon, We were founded upon the Greeks and Romans who had jury's...

Honestly, I am astound how the President reacted and to apply some of Sen. Rep Rand Paul snippet to what I have learned, I found this quote from John Locke to be importantly amusing. Especially when you compare it to how the President replied to the question: "Can you kill an American on American soil?"

John Locke: "Men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischief's may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions ..."

Rand Paul 1st hr Filibuster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MwjvOxSgic

Support #StandWithRand

Thank You Senator Rand Paul!

Sen Paul PRESS RELEASE Link - Message TODAY from Holder

It's being called a Victory:

Sen. Paul Reaches Victory Through Filibuster


O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

LIVE NOW Rand on CSpan2


O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

I have a new respect...

...for Rand Paul. He clearly showed that he is his fathers son in doing this. Daddy must be proud! I know he's not perfect, but I think he has had a game plan in mind ever since he took office.

I'm curious if anyone here actually knows

what an "indictment" is... and if they also know that part of due process is to be INDICTED by a GRAND JURY OF PEERS.

When was the last time you were arrested without being indicted first?

See: Article 5 of the Bill of Rights:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Rand and Obama

Rand Paul talked for 13 hours without a teleprompter and without going to the bathroom / Obama can't say his own name without first reading it on a teleprompter and can't go 5 mins without shiting on the constitution.

The war boys

are on the war path. Graham and McCain need to be put out to pasture.


Yeah, I heard about what they said...

...against Rand! I sure hope the American people vote them out of office next time. Funny, most Republicans I know cannot stand McCain anyway!

#StandWithRand back in #1 spot for U.S.


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

LIBERTY2ME's picture


I was having a conversation at work about Rand Paul's fillibuster. I said he was fighting for Obama to come out and say whether he believes he has the authority to kill a US citizen in US. A co-worker turned and said, "He does have that right".
We could not continue the conversation because phones were ringing and we had to stop talking. If this comes up again, can someone give me a good clean come back? I Mean I just want to smack her upside the head but I don't think that will go over very well.

Don't Eat Yellow Snow

in D.C.

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath


I just want to smack her upside the head

Sounds like this is the most logical solution...


Ask if she would trust the

Ask if she would trust the next President Bush with that power.

Also remind her that the US government once classified MLK and Nelson Mandela as, quote, "terrorists".

LIBERTY2ME's picture

Thanks for the advice, I'll

Thanks for the advice, I'll remember this.

It also appears that...

...the government defines terrorists as anyone who dislikes what they do and speaks up about it.

No prob. You could also

No prob. You could also mention that political dissidents have always been called "enemy" or "terrorist" by totalitarian states.

For example, Hitler was democratically elected by the majority and literally called his enemy, (communists at the time), "terrorists".

She'll probably say

"If he's in the middle of an active terrorist plot, then of course he has that right" We would probably agree.

The issue is whether a non-combatant, a "pre"-terrorist, if you will, having been named a terrorist because he pays in cash and has a facebook friend in Pakistan, can be arbitrarily designated a terrorist by the Administration, and taken out as part of squelching an "imminent" threat.

There's a lot of specifics involved.

We already know that the government has set up false flags. What worries me most is that someone could be blown up in their home or business by a drone missile, and the government now has two options. They could call it a terrorist action, and that the victims were innocent, or they could call it a counter-terrorist action, and that the victims were terrorists. Either way, they can use it for justification to expand fear and tyranny.

LIBERTY2ME's picture

Thank you too for the advice.

Thank you too for the advice. The more knowledge the better.

SteveMT's picture

Rand stayed on topic for 13 hours. No phonebooks were read.

This filibuster was carried out with focused precision. Rand set this up beautifully by using the unanswered or poorly answered letters as the basis for his attack. Rand also used the political opportunism of his colleagues to his advantage. They got their free air time and produced some political capital for themselves. In turn, Rand got a speaking break. He succeeded in shaming this president, but shame only works when there is the conscious, morals, and character to follow the Constitution. If these qualities were all present, this situation would have never occurred. Rand and the other senators were very careful not to use the word impeachment during yesterday's filibuster. I hope that some citizens will not have to die by drone attacks before any action is taken against this president. For now, Rand should be pleased that this filibuster went well. Hypocrisy has been exposed, alliances have been forged, and a line has been drawn in the sand. The president does not have unlimited power.


Isn't a "line in the sand" pretty simple to just wipe away and draw another line? Why do people keep using this phrase?

SteveMT's picture

Yup. It's ever moving due to vigilance or its lack.

The frog in the heating pot. Somewhere along the way, the country went to sleep.

“Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass


While we can applaud Rand for his efforts here, what is not discussed is the REAL ISSUES,



NOR can they GOVERN POLICE outside the 10 Miles Square of Washington DC.

Also, the definition of Treason is skewed to favor a federal government acting outside it's limited Delegated Powers THEMSELVES.... This is treason in itself at the hand of the federal government, not the citizens.

To understand these issues and LIMITATIONS, review these founders quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788, Kentucky Resolutions and others:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Lets start with James Madison as to the Extent of the federal Legislative Power:

James Madison: "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE THAN ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of ANY man to grant exclusive advantages, in a VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT, to the prejudice of the community at large. ...The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may REFUSE it ALTOGETHER." (limit of supremacy clause legislation = 10 miles square).

On the Limitation set upon the federal government in regard to governing Police:

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE". But it gives them power over the LOCAL police of "THE PLACE" (10 miles square), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION OF THE (SUPREMACY) CLAUSE". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT". What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "WHERE IT SHALL BE". What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the POLICE OF THE PLACE and their OWN PERSONAL independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state "WHERE IT SHALL BE" this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters. (APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place; for their exclusive power is "CONFINED to THAT DISTRICT". Were they to PASS SUCH A LAW, it would be "NUGATORY" (NULL VOID); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.This exclusive power is limited to THAT PLACE SOLEY, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary." ...

With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers "VESTED" by "THIS" Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".

On the Limitation on defining and prescribing crimes other that the 4 delegated to the federal government:

George Nicholas: " But the"COMMON LAW" is"NOT EXCLUDED". There is"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman  says that, by this (US) Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes  and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. 

1.)Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the  forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

2.)  piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
3.) offenses against the laws of nations;
4.) (counterfeit of currency is the fourth allowed not mentioned here)

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"."


To understand this CORRUPTION of the principles that DEFINE TYRANNY, read John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government From paragraphs 199 to 210.

Further, read 211 on, taking special attention to paragraph 218 regarding the Executive using the "PRETENSE of Authority" against the laws of the Original Compact thereby causing the DISSOLUTION of Government.


To understand the Limitations of Original Compacts, which to understand, that we are a Republic and not a democracy. Republics that are formed under an Original Compact with the people which allows a limited amount of authority and no more.

Locke 212: "...When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation."

See also 166, 171 political power, original and consent of the people, 220, 192 definition - "...and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have that nobody can take away any part of it without their OWN CONSENT, without which, men under any government are not in the state of free men, but are direct slaves under the force of war..." 230 (crime being committed by our federal government): "...This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to INVADE THE RIGHTS of either prince or people, and LAYS THE FOUNDATION (i.e. "DESIGN") FOR OVERTURNING THE CONSTITUTION and frame of any just government (i.e ORIGINAL COMPACT i.e. CONSTITUTION(S)), he is guilty of the GREATEST CRIME I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly."

Samuel Adams, Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

"...When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary CONSENT; and they have a RIGHT to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And "PREVIOUS LIMITATIONS" as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".-- Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded REMAINS.--"

See also Kentucky resolutions 1798 - Thomas Jefferson, repeating what George Nicholas said in the ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: In Full - See Paragraph #2: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Richard Taylor
American Patriot Party.CC


Educate Yourself. Educate Others.
Feel free to re-post elsewhere.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

rand did bring this up

you should have watched or listened to more hours of it

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Rand Touched upon parts of these, But not in this way.

We heard "non Combatants" and " armed Combatants". (I listened to over 5 hours and and then off and on until 11pm - Rand repeated most of his speech generally a few times which is to be understood when occupying time and putting a message across )

The fact is, that the federal government (federal legislative or Executive) cannot act independently within the states, as the STATE has to request federal assistance (the state can act at anytime), and only within bounds of the Constitutional Limitations everyone one is subject to. Whether pertaining to those armed or unarmed.

What about those AMERICANS that are exercising their RIGHT and DUTY.

Declaration of Independence:

"...that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ...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. ..."

What mention was there safeguarding those AMERICANS bearing arms against a tyrannical (federal) government who is "ALREADY ACTING OUTSIDE" THEIR DELEGATED POWERS? AS WELL AS ARROGATING "NEW POWERS" which are Expressly prohibited.

There was no mention of the ACT of WAR against the people by the federal government by exceeding their delegated powers and therefor exceeding their AUTHORITY.

An "Act of War" LEVELS all parties, wherein the federal government gives up it's authority and they become like any other man without authority.

John Locke:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #235: "He, therefore, who may resist must be allowed to strike.

And then let our author, or anybody else, join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit.

He that can reconcile blows and reverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his pains a civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it.

Secondly. As to his second -- "An inferior cannot punish a superior" -- that is true, generally speaking, whilst he is his superior. But to resist force with force, being the STATE OF WAR that LEVELS THE PARTIES, "CANCELS" ALL former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority; and then the odds that remains is -- that he who opposes the unjust aggressor has this superiority over him, that he has a right, when he prevails, to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace and all the evils that followed upon it. "

See also Locke paragraphs #237, 176, 181, 186, 192, 197, 198, 199 on...

I saw no mention as to the citizens right to arrest and prosecute, and to what extent, upon any and all those in the federal government acting outside the limited delegated powers and authority of the Constitution; i.e. acting without LOCAL, STATE and COUNTY authorization, whether armed or not.

George Nicholas: " He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers,the"JUDICIARY" will declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID"." ...If I understand it right, NO "NEW" power can be exercised.""

In fact I heard none in regard to citizen and state rights of retaliation against undelegated federal powers (already being exercised in the United States by the federal government). Only what powers the federal government did or did not have against the people.

James Madison also defines another definition of the powers and limitations of the federal government as to their ability to act independently of the states in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the STATES were to appoint the officers, and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the actual service of the United States....

...the state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary.

"With respect to suppressing insurrections, I say that those clauses which were mentioned by the honorable gentleman are compatible with a concurrence of the power. By the first, Congress is to call them forth to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions of "foreign powers". A concurrence in the former case is necessary, because a whole state may be in insurrection against the Union. What has passed may perhaps justify this apprehension. The safety of the Union and particular states requires that the general government should have power to {425} repel "foreign" invasions. The 4th section of the 4th article is perfectly consistent with the exercise of the "power by the STATES". The words are, "The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against INVASION, and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence." The word invasion here, after power had been given in the former clause to repel invasions, may be thought tautologous, but it has a "DIFFERENT MEANING from the other". This clause speaks of a particular state. It means that it shall be protected from invasion by "OTHER STATES". A republican government is to be guarantied to each state, and they are to be protected from invasion from "OTHER STATES", as well as from "foreign powers"; and, on application by the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other states are to be called to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the states from calling forth their own militia? - "NO" -; but it gives them a supplementary security to suppress insurrections and domestic violence.

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments  had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were,  he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were MISTAKEN.

The state governments "DID NOT" derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government; but each government derived its powers from THE PEOPLE, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this?

He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so?Could any man say that this power was not RETAINED by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably,unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution does NOT say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also".

The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.

But there are NO negative words here.It rests, therefore, with "THE STATES".

To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the SAME MANNER as they could have done before its adoption. 

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because "Congress" can interpose!

Does not every man feel a REFUTATION of the argument in his own breast?

I will show{420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility  of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless  actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary...."


Another Problem, is that the federal government has usurped the State's powers of possessing state and local Militias (the national guard is NOT a militia - James Madison describes the Militia as those officered by men chosen among themselves, not by either military or governments; George Mason indicates the militia is ALL PEOPLE not a elite separate force); Which the States are suppose to be in control under the Constitution when there is no Declaration of War.


Samuel Adams Absolute Rights of the Colonists - describes this condition as well in 1772:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without "consent"? Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament? Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single member to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but deliberately assumed a power to dispose of their lives,8 Liberties and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China! Had the Colonists a right to return members to the british parliament, it would only be hurtfull; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles distant from them; and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it; as every burden they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto many of the Colonists have been free from Quit Rents; but if the breath of a british house of commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt.

The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of TRAITORS AND REBELS, only for complaining of their grievances; How long such treatment will, or ought to be born is submitted."

This is when in fact it was with the British then as it is with the federal government now, that both governments in fact themselves were and are the "Rebels and the Traitors" to the laws and Constitutions they were suppose to be upholding but were not.

Here John Locke presents this clearly:

#140: "...for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?

# 239: "...That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king (No Executive - No Legislative - No Judge), and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority. And these two cases that he instances differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the breach of trust in not preserving the >>>FORM of government "AGREED ON", and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property. When a king has dethroned himself, and put himself in a state of war with his people, what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king, as they would any other man, who has put himself into a state of war with them,

#227 "...And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shown, can be no less esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels."

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

NOW Live on C-Span2, McCain & Graham

are spewing their nonsense as to why it's okay for the President/administration to kills its citizens... (my opinion)

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond