RSS

Category Archives: Constitution Education

Response to Federal Supremacy and Harney County issues

unconstitutional-457x264

This is a response to Rob Crawford’s criticism of my comments made in the HCJ printed on February 17th, 2016 (He is a classic example of why I homeschool my children).  It also addresses the belief upheld by some Baker County residents, such as Jerry Boyd and Travis Ash, regarding the justification of bad law enforcement, the supremacy of the federal government, and the infallibility of federal court judges.

Halfway’s February 6th Rally and Harney County Perspective

First off, regarding the tension in Eastern Oregon surrounding the Feb 6th rally in Halfway; the proposed and advertised event was one of at least fifteen others that was occurring the same day for the same purpose around the countryside, so it was by no means singled out to capitalize on hard driven emotions to promote an armed uprising as indicated by Mr. Crawford.  Halfway was no more poised to be torn apart than at anywhere else…and that threat was non-existent.  Again, the intent of the rally was to facilitate dialogue in an open forum between We the People and our local leaders to ensure that by everyone standing up against unlawful activity, we wouldn’t have “stand-offs” in the future.  And that’s exactly what occurred.  It was a great rally and all the fear mongering was of course, proven absolutely wrong.  Of course folks from all over Eastern Oregon were invited.  Why wouldn’t they be?  We were invited to theirs as well.

I reject Mr. Crawford’s assertion that using the names of Mr. Finicum and Mr. Yantis was done to overly charge the event with emotion.  Will he criticize a memorial event for the victims of Sandy Hook as well?  These events are tragic and should be memorialized in an effort to take corrective measure to ensure they’re not repeated.  As for the “scary” flyer, what was the problem?  A patriotic drummer boy?  Really?  Do the colors red, white, and blue evoke fearful emotions?  Maybe they would to the British. Who knows?

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

We first read this dead-on primer on Constitutional powers decades ago, and recently unearthed it. It creates a profound respect for Davy Crockett,beyond his well-known role in American history, and is well worth the short read! Where would this country be today if Congress had not usurped its foundational restrictions!David Crockett in Congress cover 600

Not only is taxpaid, government-dictated welfare opposite to Christian charity, it also flies directly in the face of the Constitution of the United States.

Hero of the Alamo Davy Crockett was a colonel in the Tennessee Regulars and was elected to the House of Representatives from his native state. That was before his part in the valiant defense of the famed Alamo. He served three terms as congressman from 1827 to 1833.

While Crockett was in Congress a distinguished naval officer died, leaving a widow. Members of the House proposed to appropriate $20,000 of public money to give to the widow to assure her welfare and to honor the memory of the late officer. Crockett opposed that appropriation in such persuasive terms that it received only a few votes and was defeated.

Before you consider him heartless, hear the facts which will show he was just the opposite. Others before him had said that the country owed the departed officer a debt. Crockett reminded the House of the countless men who had served their country with distinction, but to whom Congress never admitted owing a cash debt. In Crockett’s speech before the House, he said the following:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money.

 

“Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the grounds that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.

“There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them.

“Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.

“Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

 

When Crockett was later asked why he invoked the Constitution in that manner, and what led him to speak so clearly and forcefully against appropriating such a seemingly small amount, he told of an earlier, somewhat similar event.

There had been a fire in suburban Georgetown during Crockett’s first term in Congress. He was among several congressmen who rushed to the scene, helped to fight the fire, and sought shelter for the victims who were shivering on a cold night. The very next morning Congress appropriated $20,000 for the relief of the fire victims. Crockett spoke in favor. Because there was opposition, the vote on the issue was recorded in the journals of that day’s proceedings and a listing was made of those who voted for and those who voted against the appropriation.

Crockett said that when he went back to his home district to run for re-election he stopped to solicit the vote of a farmer plowing in his field. The man remembered Colonel Crockett, said he had voted for him the first time, but that he would not vote for him again. The farmer had read a newspaper account of that $20,000 gift to victims of the fire. He saw Crockett’s name listed as supporting the measure. The farmer then proceeded to explain to congressman Crockett:

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be trusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

While you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and in any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

“No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in the country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give.

The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

Every American citizen has a moral and spiritual obligation to see that no neighbor, no person, child or adult, suffers for the lack of necessities while he has the slightest surplus in his own name. But neither does man have the right to use government and the law, in the name of charity, to force the unwilling to do that which he would not do if the choice were his.

Before any citizen concludes that the poor have a better life under state welfare than their counterparts had under true charity one hundred years ago, he should examine the present and investigate the past.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

The elected County Sheriff—Protector of your Rights!

badge

We have intended to write this for a very long time, but the recent political assassination of a harmless man by rogue federal agents/paid mercenaries impels the need to rationally discuss the Office of Sheriff in general, and in particular.

(1) The Sheriff

In the Oregon Constitution, under the Judicial Department, the county sheriff “shall be the ministerial officer of the Circuit and County Courts” and performs related duties as prescribed by law.

Those “other duties”, under the Executive Department, are codified in the Oregon Revised Statutes, as follows:

The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of the office of sheriff, it is the sheriff’s duty to:

(1) Arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses.

(2 ) Defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety.

(3,4,5) [relating to court duties….not germane to this discussion]

 

The county sheriff is elected by the people in the county. He is therefore accountable to the people who elected him, and, in a sense, controlled by them. He is subject to their recall or replacement, should he fail to faithfully and diligently serve the needs of the people and the duties of his office. He is readily available for redress of grievances. His budget is controlled by the county commissioners. He is one of the people, and accessible to all within the county.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

Why is there ANY Controversy over Federal Authority and Its Claim to own Land???

fed landThe People created the State governments to protect their Inherent and Unalienable Rights. The several Confederated States of the American Union created a contract between themselves called “The Constitution of the United States” in AD 1789. All power and authority rested within those individual sovereign Republics, the States.

The federal government was the “product” of this contract, and did not exist prior to that time. Thus, the new federal government was not a party to the said Constitution, and had no inherent rights, powers or authority whatsoever. Congress named its federal government ”United States”…NOT the same entity as “The United States of America”.

To perform specific functions and duties, the States then delegated certain limited and enumerated powers and authority to this new “United States” government, carefully reserving for themselves all authority to exercise dominion over all things within their own boundaries. These very limited and enumerated powers and authorities are clearly set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of said Constitution. The first sixteen of these powers relate to uniform controls relating to commerce and war and laws.

Clause 17 of Article 1 is called the “Enclaves Clause” because it grants absolute authority of the United States (Congress) over its seat of government, now called Washington DC, and its “territories”, islands taken as war prizes called Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands, plus other lands acquired by treaty.

Clause 17 further grants absolute authority over “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall benecessary to carry out their delegation of power over the first 16 enumerated duties, as above.

It identifies and limits those Places purchased onlyfor the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. By specifically limiting these “places” to the ones mentioned, the Founders clearly did not intend for the central government to “own” ANY land for any purpose but those set forth in Section 8, or they would have listed them further.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 11, 2016 in Constitution Education, General

 

IS “CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE” EVER JUSTIFIED?

civil disobedience  The Malheur Refuge Occupation has been a lead story in all national media this week. Most articles and comments are critical of the strategy used, though the frustrations and grievances of the occupiers are generally acknowledged.
The despotism of the federal government in carrying out its unconstitutional and unAmerican Agenda 21 objectives has ruined untold families and local economies, with no access to remedy and no redress of grievances. The conditions for some are unconscionable and intolerable.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Open Letter to All County Sheriffs

                             sheriff-highest-ranking-officer-in-the-landPatriots across the nation are closely watching the Hammond case in Harney County. Some of our Baker County OathKeepers traveled to a Town Hall meeting in Burns last week on a fact-finding mission.  See the links to YouTube videos of this event at the bottom of this post.

We are very concerned that our Sheriff Ash does not understand the true authority of his office relative to the federal agencies that he deals with in our county. We are posting the following in an attempt to educate him…and others who will support him…should any events similar to the Hammond injustice occur in Baker County.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

The HOAX of Federal Jurisdiction

unconstitutional-457x264Here is a pretty good explanation about how the FRAUD of “federal jurisdiction” came into our lives, as plagiarized from this site: supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

The OathKeepers have a goal to teach people about the Constitution, and how it has been usurped over the generations. Go down to Part 3 to read the three paragraphs having to do with “Acts and Statements” by the People to cause the federal mafia to presume that we intend to enter their very limited jurisdiction and be subject to their private laws outside their constitutional authority!

We will discuss these various presumptions in further posts.

What applies to federal courts also applies to all the alphabet agencies (IRS, BATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc) created by Congress to apply only in its territories and over its employees!

If you have the interest to learn TRUTH and not merely rely upon what the propaganda machine has been spooning out to you over your lifetime, this is a good place to start: Read the rest of this entry »