9 votes

Russians in Colorado - Dawn Blitz: Japanese in California - Obama Allows Communists & Socialists to Train On US Soil.

----

***Russians Train at Fort Carson, Denver - Colorado Springs, Colorado - United States:

HUFF POST Article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/us-russian-soldiers...

Why Do We Want to Train Enemies, Potential Future Enemies, How We Operate!

Total Jackass Stupidity.

Dawn Blitz

This makes you want to see tactical nukes the norm in civil Militias.

Why would the "Commander in Chief" or anyone allow this to take place on our shores.

Training future Enemy Combatants "Before Training our Own Citizen Militia" is what Disturbs me the Most.

Especially when they are suppose to be arming and training the CITIZEN MILITIA; And not NEGLECTING THAT "DUTY".

See that Duty: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Longer Video:

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

On Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The Russians are here! The Russians are here!

I do recall that "off mike" moment that Obama had with the Prime Minister of Russia. It would not surprise me that Russia and USA are joined at the "hip" trying to bring down America.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

robot999's picture

I really think

you're on to something here high.

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Russians Training On US Soil

Russians Training On US Soil

----

Huff Post Article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/us-russian-soldiers...

----

Longer Video: US Training Camps with Foreign Troops:

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.

Virginia Ratifyng Convention, 6-16-1788 on MILITIAS

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

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 (WASHINGTON, DC) 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. "

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

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.

It Is Not in the Power of Man to Voluntarily Become A Slave

Absolute Rights Of the Colonists, 1772:

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

Samuel Adams:

"...In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property.

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up ANY ESSENTIAL NATURAL RIGHT, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation;

the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,

it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--"

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

i like how

the title is "Obama Allows Enemy Communists to Land On US Shores to Train." then in the thumbnail its says Canadians and New Zealanders lol wtf?

Communism, Socialism, Facism; Take your Pick.

Communism, Socialism, Fascism; "Total '51% Rules' Democracy" - Take your Pick.

When people are subjugated by their government, there is little difference in the result of subjugation resulting from the title.

Ask the Russian Jews.

People under all these countries have only privileges;

Not a Constitution that respects "Inalienable" Rights, which we possess.

And those Rights we possess, are being endangered, because many in this country are taking them for granted, thinking that if we give a few of them up, we would still be free;

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, it is OUR FREEDOM, that has kept and is keeping these countries governments from subjugating them further.

We need to maintain our freedoms, so to be an example they will follow in their countries.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.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.

Patrick Henry: They Have Been "ENSLAVED" by their "OWN PEOPLE"

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Patrick Henry's and George Mason's Warning this day convention results in the BILL OF RIGHTS:

Mr. HENRY (WARNS) thought it necessary and proper that they should take a collective view of this whole section, and revert again to the first clause. He adverted to the clause which gives Congress the power of raising armies, and proceeded as follows:

"To me this appears a very alarming power, when unlimited.

They are not only to raise, but to support, armies; and this support is to go to the utmost abilities of the United States.

If Congress shall say that the "GENERAL WELFARE" requires it, they may keep armies "continually on foot".

There is no control on Congress in raising or stationing them.

They may billet them on the people at pleasure.

This unlimited authority is a most dangerous power:

its principles are despotic.

If it be unbounded (i.e. Allowed outside the limited DELEGATED POWERS), it "MUST" lead to "DESPOTISM";

for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the existing power.

We shall be told that, in England, the king, lords, and commons, have this power; that armies can be raised by the prince alone, without the "consent" of the people.

How does this apply here? Is this government to place us in the situation of the English?

Should we suppose this government to resemble king, lords, and commons, we of this state {411} should be like an English county.

An English county Cannot control the government.

Virginia cannot control the government of Congress any more than the county of Kent can control that of England.

Advert to the power thoroughly.

One of our first complaints, under the former government,was the quartering of troops upon us.

This was one of the "PRINCIPLE REASONS" for DISSOLVING the connection with GREAT BRITAIN.

Here we may have troops in time of peace.

They may be billeted in any manner to tyrannize, oppress, and "CRUSH US".

We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representatives Congress will not exercise their powers oppressively;

that we shall not enslave ourselves;

that the (CITIZEN) militia cannot enslave themselves, &c.

WHO has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?

They have been "ENSLAVED" by the hands of their "OWN PEOPLE".

If it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been every where else.

I am still persuaded that the power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, is dangerous. We requested the gentleman to show the cases where the militia would be wanting to execute the laws.

Have we received a satisfactory answer? When we consider this part, and compare it to other parts, which declare that Congress may declare war, and that the President shall command the regular troops, militia, and navy, we shall find great danger. Under the order of Congress, they shall suppress insurrections.

Under the order of Congress, they shall be called to execute the "laws".

It will result, of course, that this is to be a government of force. Look at the part which speaks of excises, and you will recollect that those who are to collect excises and duties are to be aided by military force.

They have power to call them out, and to provide for arming, organizing, disciplining, them. Consequently, they are to make militia laws for this state.

The honorable gentleman said that the militia should be called forth to quell riots. Have we not seen this business go on very well to-day without military force?

It is a long-established principle of the common law of England, that civil force is sufficient to quell riots. To what length may it not be carried?

A law may be made that, if twelve men assemble, if they do not disperse, they may be fired upon. {412} I think it is so in England.Does not this part of the paper bear a strong aspect?

The honorable gentleman, from his knowledge, was called upon to show the instances, and he told us the militia may be called out to quell riots. They may make the militia travel, and act under a colonel, or perhaps under a constable. Who are to determine whether it be a riot or not? Those who are to execute the laws of the Union?

If they have power to execute their laws in this manner, in what situation are we placed!

Your men who go to Congress are not restrained by a bill of rights. They are not restrained from inflicting unusual and severe punishments, though the bill of rights of Virginia forbids it. What will be the consequence?

They may inflict the most cruel and ignominious punishments on the militia, and they will tell you that it is necessary for their discipline.

Give me leave to ask another thing.

Suppose an exciseman will demand leave to enter your cellar, or house, by virtue of his office; perhaps he may call on the militia to enable him to go.

If Congress be informed of it, will they give you redress? They will tell you that he is executing the laws under the authority of the continent at large, which must be obeyed, for that the government cannot be carried on without exercising severity.

It, without any reservation of rights or control,

"you" are contented to give up "your" rights, "I am not".

There is no principle to guide the legislature to restrain them from inflicting the utmost severity of punishment. Will gentlemen voluntarily give up their liberty?

With respect to calling the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately, it is unprecedented. Have we ever seen it done in any free country?

Was it ever so in the mother country?

It never was so in any well-regulated country.

It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly. It is not proved that this power is necessary, and if it be unnecessary, shall we give it up?"

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

I'm Canadian and NOT your enemy.

Just want to put that out there.

Now, with regard to this multinational training, it seems that a "common enemy" is needed to justify such training. The whole "war on terror" seems to be falling apart, doesn't seem like citizens are quite ready for Revolution 2.0, so what could it be?

No kidding, I would not put it past the "world elite" and their "black budget" activities to stage a fake alien invasion. Sounds f***ing crazy I know, but is anything from the last few years any less crazy??

100+ years of working with "suppressed" Tesla technology should have produced some amazing energy and transportation technology. I mean, we still haven't seen that kind of technology even in our days so who knows how mind-blowing whatever they may have may be.

Not that any of these soldiers know about any of that. Keep the cannon fodder in the dark. Maybe there's not enough wars to fight so they're just filling time?

On that note: http://www.dailypaul.com/298906/no-war-its-time-to-3volve-t-...

PEACE EVERYONE!!!

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Not much open space with no trees is there?

Canada doesn't have much open space without trees to train troops do they? I know the tank crews go to Fort Erwin in Ca to train once in awhile.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Great post. Love it. ...However, tends to Downplay

However, it downplays the seriousness of UN Multi-Nation invasions of Sovereign Countries

Under the excuse of "Keeping the Peace"

These Canadian Boys backing up the United Nation's OTHER Forces did not have "Mayonnaise" jars slung over their shoulders; And their Air force does not shoot "marsh mellows"

The Canadian Military can deliver deadly force if pointed in a direction by their "Masters" and have done so regularly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_peacekeeping_m...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-...

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/united...

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.

Fake alien invasions were sort of ruled out in the late '60s...

"Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the "last, best hope of peace," etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by "creatures" from other planets or from outer space.
Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" indicents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficult ies in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking."...

page 39 of pdf http://ia600500.us.archive.org/1/items/ReportFromIronMountai...

http://www.amazon.com/Report-Iron-Mountain-Leonard-Lewin/dp/...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

"We come in (time of) peace"

I think the problem you mention is not so much a problem of being able the thwart an invasion, but rather to convince people that those from space would actually invade.

From my many years of studying, reading, conversing, on matters of spirituality, faith, ancient knowledge, new physics, etc., it has become clear, at least to me, that the "power" that needs to be tapped into to make such interstellar travel possible, is present in the very fabric of space—of reality. This ever-present "energy" is what I can relate to as "LOVE" or the Source of All Creation. I would then assume that any civilization to harness this "power" would have to have reached a place of understanding this as a Universal Principal. The physics would be the same. Our human understanding is barely beginning to scratch the surface of this "knowing".

Love is the natural force in the universe and Hate and Fear are man-made, man-perpetuate forces that keep humanity "trapped" in a narrow perspective of separation rather than the UNITY that is evident throughout. It's all there. It just requires the right perspective—a perspective that can only be reached, at least for now, on an individual awareness. Some call this "enlightenment" some call it "awakening" and many simply call it their reality.

These falsehoods are falling and the empires that have perpetuated them are falling along with them. I will stand here on this new Earth emerging and will be a part of the generation that saw it all come down.

I hope to have some company :)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Highly Potential Enemy & And You Will You Have No Choice.

For those "SUBJECTS" of other countries that "say" they are not the enemies of our FREE "CITIZENS";

It is simply an irrelevant statement.

I Doubt if you, or THEY, will have anything to say about it.

You are as James Madison is his words described in Federalist #46 "debased subjects of arbitrary power";

(Read Federalist #46 - in Full located on the bottom of our Main Page: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Any People or Government that does not respect inalienable Rights - is a HIGHLY POTENTIAL ENEMY to our freedoms and country and all of our citizens:

----

Scenario:

UN passes the Small Arms agreement (which they HAVE) Empowering and more importantly DIRECTING "GOVERNMENTS" to regulate small arms.

Obama & John Kerry - Signs it (which They HAVE - treasonously). So called "Symbolic" for now as he knows that the such a signing does not override the Bill of Rights (inalienable) or Constitution;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-ar...

Now, I will hand it to Canada, For NOT Signing it:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/...

So "For Now" you would be off the hook "UNLESS" as Part of a UN Task Force which Canadians in such a task force may be obliged to take part as a "PEACE KEEPING" Mission; Then the below scenario would apply to you as well.

The UN and US Federal Government decide to take our Guns.

Your Canadian government shows up at your Door, hands you a Gun and then Directs you under UN CHARTER to Show Up at MY DOOR.

i.e. YOU BECOME MY ENEMY AND ATTEMPT TO ENSLAVE ME BY TAKING MY RIGHTS AND MY PROPERTY (ARMS) UNDER AN ARBITRARY POWER;

AND I WILL ATTEMPT KILL YOU TO STOP YOU:

Simple as that. History repeatedly proves this is the case.

The principles are established in Common Law and I would suggest that if you do not want the above scenario to ever come about, that you convince your government to give you a Bill of Inalienable Rights. Which includes the right to bear ANY ARM. and live FREE with it.

Principle of Law - John Locke 2nd Treatise on Civil Government:

In Full and Suggested Reading: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

(Make Note of #141 and #217)

JOHN LOCKE: 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?

JOHN LOCKE: 141. Fourthly. The legislative CANNOT transfer the power of making laws to ANY other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it CANNOT pass it over to OTHERS.

JOHN LOCKE: 149: And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of "ANYBODY", even of their "LEGISLATORS", whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on "designs" against the LIBERTIES AND PROPERTIES of the subject.

JOHN LOCKE: 151: "...But yet it is to be observed that though oaths of allegiance and fealty are taken to him (The Executive), it is NOT to him as supreme legislator, but as supreme executor of the law made by a joint power of him with others, >>> allegiance being nothing but an obedience according to law, which, when he VIOLATES, he has "NO right to obedience", nor can claim it otherwise than as the public person vested with the power of the law, and so is to be considered as the image, phantom, or representative of the commonwealth, acted by the will of the society declared in its laws, and thus he has no will, no power, but that of the law. But when he quits this representation, this public will, and acts by his own private will, he DEGRADES HIMSELF, and is but a single private person WITHOUT POWER and without will; the members owing NO OBEDIENCE but to the public will of the society (i.e. LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION).



JOHN LOCKE: 155: "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people, without authority, and CONTRARY TO THE TRUST (i.e. LIMITS SET DOWN BY THE CONSTITUTION) put in him that does so, >>>is a "STATE OF WAR WITH THE PEOPLE", who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power. For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a "RIGHT TO REMOVE IT BY FORCE".

In all states and conditions the true remedy of force "WITHOUT AUTHORITY" is to "OPPOSE FORCE TO IT". The use of force "WITHOUT AUTHORITY" always puts him that uses it into a "STATE OF WAR" as the AGGRESSOR, and renders him liable to be "TREATED ACCORDINGLY"



JOHN LOCKE: 201. "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their PROPERTIES is applied to OTHER ENDS, and made use of to IMPOVERISH, HARASS, or to SUBDUE THEM to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, THERE IT PRESENTLY BECOMES TYRANNY, ..."

Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government

211. HE that will, with any clearness, speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of Nature into one politic society, is the agreement which every one has with the rest to incorporate and act as one body, and so be one distinct commonwealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them. For in that case (not being able to maintain and support themselves as one entire and independent body) the union belonging to that body, which consisted therein, must necessarily cease, and so every one return to the state he was in before, with a liberty to shift for himself and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain. Thus conquerors' swords often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of and dependence on that society which ought to have preserved them from violence. The world is too well instructed in, and too forward to allow of this way of dissolving of governments, to need any more to be said of it; and there wants not much argument to prove that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain; that being as impossible as for the frame of a house to subsist when the materials of it are scattered and displaced by a whirlwind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake.

212. Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within:

First. When the legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them; it is in their legislative that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined together into one coherent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will. The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorised thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. 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.

213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth, who misuse the power they have, it is hard to consider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose, then, the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons: -- First, a single hereditary person having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. Secondly, an assembly of hereditary nobility. Thirdly, an assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed, it is evident:

214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended and enforced than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorised, by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

215. Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. For it is not a certain number of men -- no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating and leisure of perfecting what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists; when these are taken away, or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered. For it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered. For if others than those whom the society hath authorised thereunto do choose, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another.

218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, having the force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such changes under pretence of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government; whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never, in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet so far as the other parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder such designs, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty of one towards another.

219. There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution; this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectively to dissolve the government. For laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function. When that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude without order or connection. Where there is no longer the administration of justice for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. Where the laws cannot be executed it is all one as if there were no laws, and a government without laws is, I suppose, a mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.

220. In these, and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when, by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is, in effect, no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and, when their chains are on, tell them they may act like free men. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief, and men can never be secure from tyranny if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it; and, therefore, it is that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

221. There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them act contrary to their trust.

For the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorise a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption,

(APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772:  "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.")

endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his "designs", and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a "design" …"

231. That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offence is thereby the >>> greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust which is put into their hands by their brethren.

232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor…."

230: "…….whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government

(as the US Constitution is as it was ORIGINALLY DEFINED IN THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS establishing the Law and Rights and Authority),

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. …"

232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor…."

#233: "...I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of Nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself;

---

Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:

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

Samuel Adams:

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these

First. a Right to Life;

Secondly to Liberty;

thirdly to Property;

together with the Right to support and defend them in the BEST MANNER THEY CAN (NO LIMITS)

--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the DUTY OF SELF PRESERVATION, commonly called "the FIRST LAW OF NATURE"--

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

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.--"

---

So, "peace" for now.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.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.

Well, the only "Law" I live by is LOVE.

So if any actions are against the Fundamental Law of the Universe, LOVE, then I am NOT and NEVER WILL go against it. And that has nothing to do with some hippie bullshit. It's TRUTH. My Truth at the very least. I'm my own "Peace Keeper" and I will do all I can to spread the LOVE.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I think the Jews in World War 2 had the same tactic in mind.

I understand your stance.

But in the cruel world, it hasn't proved it that it has worked out too well.

Freedom must be guarded by everyone, at all times.

Slavery results if we do not.

i.e. It is not too wise or responsible to expect your neighbor or someone else to keep "your" tail out of a tyrant's sling.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.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.

Very true. Yet we must remember, these are different times

It isn't fair to compare past event, even as recent as WW2, as there was no "global view" present as is today with the internet.

We are entering a time of global "consciousness" as a result for the very first time in our World's history. Prior generations were isolated in their own propagandized societies. The methods of separation are falling apart with the internet. We see that are problems are not just "our problems" but ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS. Words written on paper to enslave the human mind to "obey" the holder of the pen.

True Slavery exists in one's mind. If you view yourself as a citizen of "designated patch of land here" rather than a being having a human experience here on this planet as it spirals around a giant ball of fire out in space spiralling out of the centre of one of billions of galaxies, then you are living a reality that has been IMPOSED.

It is time for a thinking unlike that that we have EVER seen. It is time for us to see that there is a common force attempting to control all people in all nations and in fact the whole world.

This is why these falsehoods must continue to fall apart as they have already begun. Attempts will be made with old tactics of Hate and Fear and Division amongst humanity but it is all too little and too late.

What we see now is a rabid dog being cornered as it slowly loses its mind and the Fear of its destruction causes it to bark louder, bite harder. But it all ends with a walk to the woods to be put down in its rightful place to become fertilizer for the world that will bloom as a result.

All this is necessary. It is LAW. There can be no light without darkness. There can be no Global awareness of LOVE without a Global awareness of Hate—a process that has only just begun.

I am a free being who understands the imposition of slavery in all its forms placed upon me. Yet the simple fact that I see the "prison" we're all in is a Freedom I have never felt before.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Whoa! ....Deeep.

......I did not say "Faaaarrrrr out!" ....Just Deeep.

(well, I guess I just did - Sorry, 60's flashback)

That's what freedoms all about, isn't it?

...whoa...

....

....no. I am not going to ask.

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.

I suppose, from such a "depth"...

it becomes easier to see what is on the surface, no matter your age ;)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

John Locke - When Resistance is Just.

John Locke - Second Treatise on Civil Government - 1698

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

228. But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience "when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties", and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, "contrary" to the "TRUST" (i.e. The Original Compact that created the Government and limited the powers) put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates,

because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's".

If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for "PEACE SAKE" to him who will lay violent hands upon it,

I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be "maintained only" for the "benefit of robbers and oppressors".

Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the MIGHTY AND THE MEAN,

when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? "

229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny,

or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the properties of their people? "

232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it,

and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

237. "What, then, can there no case happen wherein the people may of right, and by their own authority, help themselves, take arms, and set upon their king, imperiously domineering over them? None at all whilst he remains a king. 'Honour the king,' and 'he that resists the power, resists the ordinance of God,' are Divine oracles that will never permit it. The people, therefore, can never come by a power over him unless he does something that makes him cease to be a king; for then he divests himself of his crown and dignity, and returns to the state of a private man, and the people become free and superior; the power which they had in the interregnum, before they crowned him king, devolving to them again. But there are but few miscarriages which bring the matter to this state. After considering it well on all sides, I can find but two. Two cases there are, I say, whereby a king, ipso facto, becomes no king, and loses all power and regal authority over his people, which are also taken notice of by Winzerus. The first is, if he endeavour to overturn the government -- that is, if he have a purpose and design to ruin the kingdom and commonwealth, as it is recorded of Nero that he resolved to cut off the senate and people of Rome, lay the city waste with fire and sword, and then remove to some other place; and of Caligula, that he openly declared that he would be no longer a head to the people or senate, and that he had it in his thoughts to cut off the worthiest men of both ranks, and then retire to Alexandria; and he wished that the people had but one neck that he might dispatch them all at a blow. Such designs as these, when any king harbours in his thoughts, and seriously promotes, he immediately gives up all care and thought of the commonwealth, and, consequently, forfeits the power of governing his subjects, as a master does the dominion over his slaves whom he hath abandoned.

238. "The other case is, when a king makes himself the "dependent of another", and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the "DOMINION OF ANOTHER".

For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people, yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a "FOREIGN NATION".

By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom, he himself LOOSES THE POWER" he had in it before,

>>> without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it;

and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is to be found in the Scotch annals."

(APP Note: Relate this to a national government who places its people into the hands of a world government (or organization), or under the control of foreign treaties - then Review the APP news letter on the Constitutional Debates, what must occur, and what are the protections of the states, with regard to when a national government becomes disingenuous to its "original compact".)

239. In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king.

That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king,

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, ..."

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

c'mon guys

these countries are not enemies of the united states....they are allies of the U.S.

From Wiki:

"Operation Dawn Blitz is an annual military exercise orchestrated by the United States Navy and Marine Corps to simulate an amphibious assault by landing infantry and support on a beachhead. In recent years it has grown to incorporate the military of several US allies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_Blitz

See above reply to Canadian. and Below Video on EU

See above reply to Canadian. and Below 2nd Video on EU http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3219442 where German Socialist Party is attempting to consolidate power and remove powers from sovereign countries.

If you are from Germany as your Name suggests, you may want, as I have suggested to the Canadian, to work to get a Bill of Inalienable Rights in your Country as well.

And get rid of your Socialist Party and it's attempts to take control of the EU.

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.

I'd

like to get rid of the socialist party in germany...but that will never happen... unfortunately our "conservative" party is becoming more socialist. don't get me started on this communist EU project...that's just crazy and will lead to violence, economic collapse or most likely to both. i voted for a new conservative right leaning party...however, the propaganda in germany is extremely effective and it's not likely that there will be a change of politics before a big event like a crash etc. occurs.

I still don't think that the United Nations are a threat to the U.S.. The U.N. is just a tool for the U.S. foreign policy. Of course the U.N. has efforts to set up global government like the E.U. set up a european government, but they will do this without military force. (global currency or global taxes for CO2)

The video is not evidence that these nations are a thread to you. This video just shows an annual military exercise...for some reason you see it as proof that they are training to come and get you... there is no logic in the way you think. It's emotional based thinking and leaves without good judgement.

It is good that you are voting Conservative; Common Law Better.

It is good that you are voting Conservative, but better if you voted for those who espouse Common Law principles.

The statement you have made regarding being taken over by global taxes etc. was something George Mason and Patrick Henry warned about also:

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

Mr. GEORGE MASON asked (warned) to what purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that too much power was given to Congress power that would finally DESTROY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS more effectually by "INSIDIOUS, UNDERHANDED MEANS", than such as could be openly (i.e. by force) practiced.

This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America.

These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it, Congress ought not to have the power. The meeting of three or four persons might be called an insurrection, and the militia might be called out to disperse them. He was not satisfied with {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)

He thought they were not confined to the technical explanation, but that Congress could inflict severe and ignominious punishments on the militia, as a necessary incident to the power of organizing and disciplining them. The gentleman had said there was no danger, because the laws respecting the militia were less rigid in the other states than this. This was no conclusive argument.

His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that grievous punishments would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the militia themselves, and induce them to wish its abolition, which would afford a PRETENCE for establishing a standing army.

(APP Note: This has already happened)

He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENTS ought to have the control of the militia, except when they were "absolutely necessary" for general purposes.

The gentleman had said that they would be only subject to martial law when in actual service.

>>>>He demanded what was to hinder Congress from >>>INFLICTING IT ALLWAYS, and making a >>>general law for the purpose.

(THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED)

If so, said he, it must finally produce, most infallibly, the annihilation of the state governments.

These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless.

---

Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the STATES were to appoint the officers (Not federal government), and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the "actual service of the United States".

He asked, if power were given to the general government, if we must not give it executive power to use it. The vice of the old system was, that Congress could not execute the powers nominally vested in them. If the contested clause were expunged, this system would have nearly the same defect.

Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.

Mr. MADISON answered, that 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.

----

So the "Logic" I present, is based upon historical fact;

Every Corruption that Patrick Henry and George Mason declared would happen in that Virginia Convention 6-16-1788 ....

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

"HAS" Happened.

----

And more corruption is developing as our federal government steps outside the "limited delegated powers";

and as Patrick Henry Warned in that day convention, the Federal government is going fully into the "BUSINESS" of "HUMAN LEGISLATION" and away from Legislating under the Principles of "Common Law";

Here are the foundations on which I base my judgement:

Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security personal liberty and private property.

All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others:

First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society."6

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.--

"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and "known" laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People.

"There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7

Thirdly, The supreme power CANNOT Justly TAKE FROM ANY MAN, "ANY PART" OF HIS "PROPERTY" WITHOUT HIS "CONSENT", in "person" OR BY HIS "REPRESENTATIVE".--

These are some of the "FIRST PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW & JUSTICE", and the "GREAT BARRIERS OF ALL FREE STATES", and of the British Constitution in particular.

It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to GIVE AND GRANT THE PROPERTY (i.e. TAKE or give to others) of the Colonists. ..."

-------

The "emotion" is used to get people to WAKE UP and educate themselves to the Foundations of Freedom, so they are not led astray or enslaved.

The Principles I rely on are sound, and backed by lessons of history.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Also Review "Republics and Representation": http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Follow us on Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

and on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

Thank goodness for the

Thank goodness for the oathkeepers! I wish more members of our military would take their oath seriously. Instead, it would seem most are okay with becoming UN lackeys and fell for the political diatribe with keywords like, terrorism, deMOCKracy, national security interests blah, blah ,blah.

http://www.businessinsider.com/joint-us-russia-military-dril...
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/10/nigeria-us-uk-others-hold...
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/US-engaged-in-joint-mili...

Soldiers - more fear of command than love for the constitution

There is so much fear that not one active duty soldier has discussed the ultimate legal, peaceful tool for defending the constitution from a domestic enemy.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

I saw a thread sit at oathkeepers.org site forum for over a year with not a single post. Gone now. The MIC is like a god of war to them, nothing else matters. This will continue until the public starts a dialogue on constitutional intent that they must to conduct an Article V convention and defend the constitution in making constitutional federal government.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

glad

that the oathkeepers supported adam kokesh...wait, they didn't. screw them

Training future Enemy Combatants Before Training our Own Militia

Training future Enemy Combatants Before Training our Own Citizen Militia is what Disturbs me the Most.

Especially when they are suppose to be arming and training the Citizen Militia and not NEGLECTING THAT DUTY:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

"...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 (ONLY) within the ten miles square (OF WASHINGTON, DC) 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. ..."

"... But the worthy member fears, that in one part of the Union they (THE CITIZEN MILITIAS) will be regulated and disciplined, "AND IN ANOTHER NEGLECTED". This danger is enhanced by leaving this power to each state; for some states may attend to their militia, and others may neglect them.

***If "CONGRESS" "NEGLECT" OUR (CITIZEN) "MILITIA", "WE CAN ARM THEM" "OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >CANNOT SHE (THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA) PUT PUT THEM INTO THE HANDS of "HER" militia-men? (i.e. EACH STATE "CAN")

He then concluded by observing, that the "power of governing the militia" was NOT vested in the states by implication,

because, being "possessed of it" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution,

they must necessarily be as "FULLY POSSESSED OF IT" as ever they had been.

> And it could NOT be said that the states derived "ANY" powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them,"

>>>>>>>>"THOUGH NOT ACKNOWLEDGED in ANY PART OF IT"."

The STATES should be "INSISTING" that the CITIZENS TAKE PART IN ALL MILITARY EXERCISES in the states.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

Now on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

Canadians and New Zealanders are our enemies?!

wtf?