The Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1946 Restored the Rule of Law by using The Second Amendment.


The Battle of Athens

1-2 AUGUST 1946

  • Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:
  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

GE DIGITAL CAMERA

I. Introduction: 

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution – Article 1, Section 26 – recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting 

These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers.

They also had long accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff’s department from fines – usually for speeding or public drunkenness – which promoted false arrests;put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

  • ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;
  • poll-watchers had to be allowed;
  • armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;
  • ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.

III. The Circumstances

The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff’s office.

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell’s Troubles Begin

At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield’s deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield’s doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

  • to challenge Cantrell politically;
  • to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;
  • to promise a fraud-free election.
  • In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:
  • an honest ballot count;
  • reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, “‘The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'” (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians’ complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets

The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed “deputies”. GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff’s deputy, “‘Nigger, you can’t vote here today!!'”. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been “shot in the back”; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count “public”. A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. “The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, “his gun raised high …shouted: ‘You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I’ll kill you!'” (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the “people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history.” (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war’s end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and “local boys” headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail’s defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens

Three GIs – alerting passersby to danger – were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a “tommy gun” (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs’ rifle fire was un-coordinated. “From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply ‘shooting at the jail’.” (Byrum, p. 189).

Several who ventured into “no man’s land”, the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff’s deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail’s porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield’s deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell’s 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, “Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. …To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf.” (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates’ victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

  • the jail was fixed;
  • newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;
  • Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.

The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. “Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the ‘Battle’ agree that he was not bitter about what had happened.” (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

VIII. The Outsiders’ Response

The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders’ reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who:

“…quite obviously – though we hope erroneously – felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

… “There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence…and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process.” (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

  • McMinn Countians’ many appeals for outside help;
  • some ruthless people only respect force;
  • that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs).

The New York Times:

  • never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield’s wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;
  • feared citizens’ restoring the Rule of Law by armed force.

Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38).

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

  • McMinn County’s sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;
  • the Justice Department’s repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.

Jennings was delighted that “…at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn…”. (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

IX. The Lessons of Athens

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression – as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield – is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments “gone bad” have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. “Gun control” clears the way for genocide by giving governments “gone bad” far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by “gun control”. McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

This is a bare bones summary of a major report in JPFO’s Firearms Sentinel (January 1995). To learn how the gutsy people of Athens, Tennessee did the Framers of the Constitution proud, send $3 to JPFO, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53207; and request the January 1995 Firearms Sentinel. This document is from: chiliast@ideasign.com (A.K. Pritchard)


Press reports on the Battle of Athens and Chronology — From contemporary sources.

X. Videos

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

Advertisements

OUTRAGEOUS Feds Released Nearly 20K Criminal Aliens in 2015; 200 Convicted of Murder


As seen on Happening Now

Illegal Immigrant Goes Free After Fatal DUI Crash, May Now Be in Honduras

124 Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Admin Later Charged With Murder


Lawmakers are grilling Obama administration officials on why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released more than 86,000 criminal aliens in the past three years.

The House Oversight Committee hearing comes after the release of statistics for 2015, which show that ICE released 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants, rather than deporting them.

The more than 64,000 convictions include 196 that were homicide-related, 216 for kidnapping, more than 600 sex offenses and more than 800 robberies, Fox News chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel reported.

ICE releases nearly 20,000 criminal aliens in 2015.The Center for Immigration Studies reports that those released totaled more than 8,000 convictions for violent crimes.

ICE releases illegal criminals 20000 feds 2015

The map above shows the releases state by state, with California and Texas leading the way.

Critics say the highest levels of the Obama administration are to blame for the lax policies.

“The law is crystal clear. You are making these discretionary choices in releasing these people out into the public and they’re committing more crimes. I don’t understand why you don’t deport them,” said committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

Emanuel said lawmakers are scheduled to hear from family members of those killed by illegal immigrants.

At the hearing, ICE director Sarah Saldana pushed back, arguing that the issue stems from countries like Haiti refusing to take back their criminals.

Saldana said it’s “absolutely unforgivable” to suggest that ICE law enforcement agents are choosing to put criminals back on the streets.

Watch Emanuel’s report above.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Bill discussed the ongoing problem with Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chaired a House hearing last week on the issue.

O’Reilly asked Gowdy about the status of Kate’s Law, which the host proposed last year after the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

Watch the interview below.


CA Cops: Illegal Immigrant with 4 Prior Arrests Charged in Fatal Sex Attack

Former Border Patrol Officer: U.S. Heroin Epidemic Fueled by Illegal Immigration

Father of Man Killed by Illegal Immigrant: San Fran Sheriff ‘Belongs in Jail’

New Security Concerns After Syrian Refugees Reach Texas Border


http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/28/feds-released-nearly-20k-criminal-aliens-2015-200-convicted-murder

Globalists Continue To Push The Lie That Treaties Are Binding Upon The United States Citizens: Treaties Can Be Nullified By States Or Statutes & Obama Removed From Office!


Our Senate and President (not to mention that he is a usurper) lack lawful authority to enter into a treaty that conflicts with The Constitution so even signed and ratified it would not be a valid treaty.

Reblogged from Political Vel Craft dated July 2012

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution“.

The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”. HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. 2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, 3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth. “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See:Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article VI. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIESDO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED. Now we must let our elected “representatives” in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE… we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. – CDR]

__________________________________________

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

“Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.

pg 317 – “The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” ______________________________________________________________Further evidence:

Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.

“Dear Mr. Neely:”Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. … I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies] “… Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country… “

[CDR Note: It is our belief that Arlen Specter would not have been as truthful regarding Constitutional Supremacy over treaties if he had a clue that this letter to a constituent would have found its way into the hands or eyes of the public.]

_________________________________________________

Logical deduction:      No law or treaty supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land.  ‘Supreme’… meaning ‘highest or greatest’.  What is higher than highest or greater than greatest, other than our Creator?  The Constitution acknowledges our God-given, unalienable rights, and secures those rights in that acknowledgement.         The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let’s examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of the Constitution states:

Clause 2 – “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”Clause 3 – “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution .”

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede B or be repugnant to B this Constitution.

Treaties made under the authority of the United States… the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.       The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void.

The answer to this question is self-evident.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations B the word Anation@ although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization – a Global Corporate Bureaucracy.The ‘experts’ in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders — lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example — have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of ‘treaty-supremacy’ for decades.

Their ‘expertise’ is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the ‘common man’ (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let’s not go there. Here’s a perfect example of ‘expert’ propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…

“Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away. The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.

“There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”

Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.      The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress.  A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture? Case Closed Sweet Liberty

Second Important Article About The Treaty Myth.

Treaties do not override the Constitution.
By Don Fotheringham In anticipation that our president may sign one or more treaties that conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s limited grant of power, several voices of alarm are contending that a treaty can override, or in effect amend, our Constitution. Although that view has gained some currency, it is a myth that contradicts the intent of those who framed the Constitution. And it violates any reasonable interpretation of that document. Origin of the Myth The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.
 divider gif
1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made the following statement:
divider gif
2 … congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.
 divider gif
3 It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?
 divider gif
But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause, because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state constitutions, laws. and treaties. Some Important History This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers.
 divider gif
During the convention,
Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each other.”
divider gif
4 State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation would be threatened.
divider gif
5 In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify
state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected, the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and constitutions.
divider gif
The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is worded as follows: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified.
divider gif
Thereafter, only federal treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary. Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a position to speak to the world with one voice.
 divider gif
United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never intended to be a power greater than the Constitution. Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
divider gif
During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI: “I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of its delegation.”
 divider gif
6 In the same discussion
Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in any other manner or situation be supreme. Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty- making to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
divider gif
But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of citizens who 1) understand the document, and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power heresy that yet prevails.
divider gif
It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Those who seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution.
 divider gif
1 In decades immediately prior to the Dulles speech, Supreme Court decisions had already begun to enunciate the idea (see, for example, Missouri v. Holland in 1920 and United States v. Pink in 1942).
 divider gif
2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
 divider gif
3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.
divider gif
4 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
 divider gif
5 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
 divider gif
6 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514. Robert Welch University
divider gif
Founding Fathers

divider gif

Related articles:

An Invitation: Let’s take back our Constitutional Republic and place it back under God where it belongs.


Hi Everyone!!

This is an invitation to join me on a very informative teleconference. You guys have all shown interest in the past about what I do with Citizen Initiatives and you know I believe whole-heartedly in the The Countermand Amendment and the strategy that Charles has devised to make sure the convention is safe and predictable. His theory is sound. The Convention of States Group’s version of the Art 5 Convention frightens me to no small degree. I need help reaching out to our several great State Legislators..

You guys also know me well enough that I would not advocate anything I thought would harm The US Constitution. I am here to protect, defend and preserve The Constitution. This strategy is safe and sound and very very powerful!! If this info ever gets into the realm of common knowledge we will end this tyrannical federal over-reach peacefully and in a short amount of time.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Lot’s has been going on with Citizen Initiatives. We are making wonderful progress in spite of having so few resources.. The only resource we need are you and me and our brains. We can end this tyranny! Together! I hope you can join me and help me reach out to your great state.

All we need are 51% of the house and 51% of the senate to pass this brilliant piece of legislation. Please pool your resources to help me accomplish this seemingly impossible mission. We need our State Legislatures is all. And we need 34 of them.. thats right 34 states applying to the US Congress for The Countermand Amendment Convention. of those we need only 26 states to pass The Delegate Resolution that defines and controls the amendment convention and the delegates who are sent…….. With 26 states adopting the same delegate resolution… WE WILL CONTROL THE CONVENTION!!!

The trick is to make sure our state legislatures control the convention from start to finish (from application all the way thru to ratification) never giving the delegates free rein to ‘write’ the amendment. The state legislatures MUST pre-approve the text of the proposed amendment along with the controlling defining delegate resolution BEFORE the convention ever begins.. The delegates will have their assignment waiting for them at the table when they sit down.. They do not write anything! The delegates are there as an ambassador to their state legislature ONLY.  They do not compare to our ‘Founding Fathers’.

Here are the documents I need you to familiarize yourself with and have ready for reference during the call. We will also be discussing the strategy:

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-amendment.html 

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-delegate-resolution.html

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-application-on-congress.html

https://www.countermands.us/home.html

This 23 minute video from Charles will explain further.

The Article V Countermand Amendment is being well received by our State Legislators.  We now have at least 10 and maybe 12 States with sponsors.  Another 8 States are currently reviewing the Countermand Amendment and Delegate Resolution. (remember we need 34 total)

We are going to win this battle for our Constitutional Republic through State Legislatures, bypassing Congress, the Courts and Executive Branch. We will be making history! Join me with Citizen Initiatives!

The teleconference is set for Sunday evening 8pm est (may require more than one) to get everyone oriented and up to speed with the other directors and coordinators who are advancing The Countermand Amendment Convention.

Citizen Initiatives has the regular weekly Director’s Teleconference every Monday at 8pm est.

Please email me at: articlev@mail.com if you would like to participate in this important, perhaps even, ‘historical’ teleconference and let’s take back our Constitutional Republic and place it back under God where it belongs.

one person can make a dif and everyone should try

Tha Act of 1871: The Incorporation of USA and The Treachery Against Americans


Act of 1871
BOOKSTORE
Act of 1871
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for
the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of
government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in
the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests
(international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the
coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because
the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without
serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the
United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The
corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original
Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was
defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized
and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of
the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic
capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the
Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact
on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing
the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the
government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Byron%20Wine/Desktop/Act%20of%201871.htm (1 of 6) [8/21/2005 11:30:44 AM]

Act of 1871
newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits
only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely
outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic
Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One
example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed
(under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to
be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed
TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees
of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. [Information
courtesy of Lisa Guliani, http://www.babelmagazine.com. The Act of 1871 became the
FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dove: The following is an expansion and further explanation of the above (an
adaptation of Lisa’s work, done with her permission), which you may want to
read for your own edification. Whereas my Chapter 9 is a time-map of the major
Headlines and Landmines of the 200-years-plus history of America, each
subsequent chapter goes into particular details. This section is from Chapter 18,
“The Tale of Two Governments, which overall addresses the difference between
a democracy and a republic as well as the fact of a federal government and a
shadow government practicing under the guise of The Corporation. I’m sure Lisa
won’t mind your using what you need in order to make whatever point you wish
to make in the moment. . . . C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The United States Isn’t a Country; It’s a Corporation! In preparation for stealing
America, the puppets of Britain’s banking cabal had already created a second
government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common
herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED
STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the
common herd all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]
Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for
the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did
they do so? First, Lisa Guliani of Babel Magazine, reminds us that the Civil War
was, in fact, “little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by
backroom players.” Then she adds: “It was also a strategic maneuver by British
and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold
on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire
financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international
bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into
everyone’s pie). . . . . There you have the WHY, why members of Congress
permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America. . . . . .
“Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Byron%20Wine/Desktop/Act%20of%201871.htm (2 of 6) [8/21/2005 11:30:44 AM]

Act of 1871
THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the
organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word ‘for’ to ‘of’ in the
title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers
read: ‘The Constitution for the united states of America.’ [note that neither the
words ‘united’ nor ‘states’ began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ is a corporate constitution, which is
absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our
rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the
international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know
the full meaning of sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in
position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or
entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction.” (Webster).
In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns — free
citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land – was stolen from us,
along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution,
only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration
of Independence say, “…government is subject to the consent of the governed.”
That’s us — the sovereigns. When did you last feet like a sovereign? As Lisa
Guliani explained:
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that
the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed
since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the
whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the
ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has
invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO
jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. “You see,
you are ‘presumed’ to know the law, which is very weird since We the People
are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and
phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, ‘We the
People…establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ But our
teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the
corporate government) don’t delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the
corporation was established to indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the masses, not to
teach anything of value or importance. Certainly, no one mentioned that
America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt
incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet,
for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to
pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There’s an endless stream of things
the People aren’t told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about
being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? “After
passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions
into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down
the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down
and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the
people’s gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was handed over to illegitimate law.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Byron%20Wine/Desktop/Act%20of%201871.htm (3 of 6) [8/21/2005 11:30:44 AM]

Act of 1871
(I’ll bet you weren’t taught THAT in school.)
“Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty,
or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ and the
‘Law of the Seas’ — another fact of American history not taught in our schools.
Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation
began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words,
the government — the government created for the District of Columbia via the
Act of 1871 – operates solely under Private International Law, not Common
Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. “This fact has
impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private
International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia,
and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the
UNITED STATES are called ‘departments’ — i.e., the Justice Department, the
Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where
(in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the
corporation — to the UNITED STATES.
“Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is
evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15)
(A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.
Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not
disconnected from the government; it IS the government — your government.
This is extremely important! I refer to it as the ‘corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED
STATES,’ which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original
Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you’ll ask
your Congressperson about this? HA!! “Congress is fully aware of this deception.
So it’s time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great
deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you
and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we
can’t get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our
questions.
“Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the
corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in
ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that
tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full
knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by
accident? If you do, you’re deceiving yourself.
“There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth.
Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don’t know the
law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was
ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to
full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than
what the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.
“Remember also that ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ It’s your responsibility
and obligation to learn the law and know how it applies to you. No wonder the
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Byron%20Wine/Desktop/Act%20of%201871.htm (4 of 6) [8/21/2005 11:30:44 AM]

Act of 1871
corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent,
unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive
within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our
thinking for us. Now’s the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our
Republic and ourselves — before it’s too late.
“As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you
from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property,
even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and
licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If
you don’t believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how ‘free’ you really are.
Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent;
consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People
we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth
we are servants of the corporation.
“Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could
have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren’t enough
honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom
than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called
‘government.’ “Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars
would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person
would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain
silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we
stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been
as stolen from the us?
“If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed,
how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need
is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can
change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our
ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People.”
[Posted 8/27/02,
]
1871 the-act-of-1871

Wisdom And Freedom
produced by
WORLD NEWSSTAND
Copyright © 2003. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
page image by
Windy’s Design Studio
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Byron%20Wine/Desktop/Act%20of%201871.htm (5 of 6) [8/21/2005 11:30:44 AM

Join or Form Your Local Militia Today! No Militia, Means More Intrusive Law Enforcement


Join Your Local Texas or other State Militia Chapter Today ! Train & Prepare to defend yourselves, your family, your friends and neighbors and even your town. The enemy is among us and we will have to stick together to get thru the battle that is headed our way. Join or Form A Local Militia Today! No Militia, Means More Intrusive Law Enforcement

MILITIA CITIZENS MILITIA MODERN WITH 1788 QUOTE

No Militia, Means More Intrusive Law Enforcement

Militias are often given a bad name by the liberal news media, but who are they really? Watch this short documentary and find out.
Copyright : Melton Media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scpDtMZlJho

Militias are not in favor of having another revolution in America. We are for restoring a literal interpretation of the United States Constitution as the founding fathers intended with a strong emphasis on the bill of rights, states rights, and a limited federal government. Militias are not illegal. Militias are not anti-government. Militias are authorized by the US Constitution.

militia YOU ARE THE MILITIA aithe flag very nice

https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/join-your-local-texas-militia-chapter-today/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
South Texas.. Veteren of DHS Says, “We’re in a war zone.” And there’s no room for apathy. “This is coming to a town near you,” he warns.

https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/south-texas-veteren-of-dhs-says-war-zone-were-in-a-war-zone-and-theres-no-room-for-apathy-this-is-coming-to-a-town-near-you-he-warns/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Texas Reserve Militia Info and Guidelines

Form every Militia according to a law that we already have and get a Resolution passed in every County Court. I have a version of a Resolution and if you want a copy, message me with your email address and I will get it to you.

    • Sec. 431.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

      (1) “Reserve militia” means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.

      (1-a) “Servicemember” has the meaning assigned by Section 161.551, Health and Safety Code.

      (2) “State militia” means the state military forces and the reserve militia.

      (3) “State military forces” means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.

      (4) “Texas National Guard” means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.

      (5) “Employee” has the meaning assigned by Section 21.002, Labor Code.

      (6) “Employer” has the meaning assigned by Section 21.002, Labor Code.

      (7) “Political subdivision” has the meaning assigned by Section 21.002, Labor Code. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

    • SUBCHAPTER E. RESERVE MILITIA

      Sec. 431.071. MILITARY DUTY. (a) The reserve militia is not subject to active military duty, except that the governor may call into service the portion of the reserve militia needed for the period required in case of war, insurrection, invasion or prevention of invasion, suppression of riot, tumult, or breach of peace or to aid civil officers to execute law or serve process.

      (b) The governor may assign members of the reserve militia who are called into service to existing organizations of the state military forces or organize them as circumstances require. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

    • Sec. 431.072. COUNTY EMERGENCY BOARD. The county emergency board of each county consists of the county judge, sheriff, and tax assessor-collector. If one of those officers is unable to act, the governor shall designate another public official to serve on the board.

      Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

    • Sec. 431.073. DRAFT. (a) The governor, by order to the county emergency board, shall apportion the number of members of the reserve militia called into service among the counties by draft according to each county’s population or by other means the governor directs. The county emergency board shall establish fair and equitable procedures for selection of persons to fill the draft according to regulations adopted by the governor. On completion of the selection, the board shall deliver a list of the persons selected to the governor and notify each person selected of the time and place to appear and report.

      (b) A member of the reserve militia while in active service is a member of the state military forces under Section 432.001(16), and is subject to the punitive provisions of Chapter 432. A member who does not appear at the time and place designated by the county emergency board shall be punished as a court-martial directs. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

    • Sec. 431.074. PENALTY. (a) A member of a county emergency board who neglects or refuses to perform a duty required by this subchapter commits an offense.

      (b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 and confinement in jail for not less than six nor more than 12 months. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Contact: David W. Smith https://www.facebook.com/david.w.smith.31

Form every Militia according to a law that we already have and get a Resolution passed in every County Court. I am working on one right now in Orange County. I have a version of a Resolution and if you want a copy message me with your email address and I will get it to you. email me at the.texas.tiger@mail.com or

Contact: 409-201-3644

David W. Smith ~ GTM Commander


KAPOW!!!!
In the letter, state Democrats called the militias “lawless” and accused them of perpetuating “the stigma that the border is a war zone.”

Perhaps the reason there is a stigma about the border being a war zone is because it is one. Violent gang members and drug cartels have attacked Border Patrol agents, not to mention the Mexican military helicopter that opened fire on Americans, making the border a very unsafe place to be.

Truth be told, the militia shouldn’t be down there, because it’s the president’s job to provide all of the proper resources needed to secure the border. Unfortunately, since he refuses to do his job, these individuals are filling in the gap.

Attorney General Greg Abbott shrugged the letter off calling it a “partisan political stunt” and went on to say that rather than whining about the militia, they “should work with their Republican colleagues to secure federal funding for the state’s border security efforts.”

https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/boom-texas-attorney-general-stop-whining-about-the-militia-and-defend-the-border/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick Perry: “It’s Time for Us to Start a Little Rebellion”

perry lets stop trying to curry favor

When 70 percent of American citizens support voter identification laws but the president’s attorney general sues states to overturn them, something just isn’t right.

When the people’s government fails to respond to the people, Rick Perry says he has the answer, according to Townhall.

“Jefferson was right when he said a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” the Texas Republican said
https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/rick-perry-its-time-for-us-to-start-a-little-rebellion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The American Militia in Defense of the State

With the ratification of the Constitution, there was a greater consolidation of the collective into a Union. It also imposed upon that Union an obligation to protect each State against invasion, first, within the Powers of the Congress:

Article I, § 8, clause 15– The Congress shall have the Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Secondly, a guarantee (the only guarantee in the Constitution), with the mandatory “shall”:

Article IV, § 4– The United States shall guarantee 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.

It is apparent, then, that protection from invasion warrants the attention, and cooperation, of the federal government. However, we must consider whether the States lost their right to repel invasion, absent the federal government fulfilling their oblation and guarantee. This, then, leads us to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Congress was given the Power, though nothing makes that Power exclusive. If it had been exclusive, surely a prohibition against the state protecting its borders would have been written as a prohibition in Article I, Section 10.

Well, that all makes sense; however, can that right to protect a State’s borders be affirmed by example? Answer: Most assuredly. Though the incidents being used to demonstrate this “Right of the State” to protect its borders were from the early part of the 19th Century, there have been no changes to the Constitution that would eliminate that right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Constitutional Militia

Amendment II United States Constitution
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

MILITIA CARTOON I ASK SIR WHAT IS A MILITIA

Militias are not in favor of having another revolution in America. We are for restoring a literal interpretation of the United States Constitution as the founding fathers intended with a strong emphasis on the bill of rights, states rights, and a limited federal government. Militias are not illegal. Militias are not anti-government. Militias are authorized by the US Constitution. And DO LEGALLY EXIST!!!

No Militia, Means More Intrusive Law Enforcement

Our Framers didn’t envision a free state with the current level of government control.

Professional police not having been invented, the militia was the primary tool for enforcing the law in circumstances that went beyond the reach of the town constable, and it was also the primary source of defense against invasions and insurrection.

Calling out the militia thus meant calling out ordinary citizens, trained in military tactics (that’s the “well-regulated” part), bearing their own arms. The Framers — who had a deep and abiding fear of professional standing armies because of abuses by the British Crown — thought this safer. A professional standing army could turn on the people, placing its loyalty with its paymasters rather than with those it was supposed to protect. The militia, on the other hand, couldn’t betray the people because it was the people.

police then and now

http://p2t2solutions.com/no-militia-means-more-intrusive-law-enforcement/

KAPOW!! Texas Attorney General: Stop Whining About the Militia and Defend the Border


August 12, 2014

I AM LOVING THIS ONE!!!

KAPOW

By now everyone is well aware of the disaster happening at the border with thousands of illegals pouring into the country, while President Obama watches gleefully, awaiting the moment he can declare an emergency and pass amnesty with an executive order.

Since the Obama administration wants this crisis to continue escalating, they’ve opted to do nothing to secure the border or offer assistance to help communities pay for the cost of caring for illegal immigrants.

As a result, many border states, like Texas, have decided to take action on their own, with Gov. Rick Perry deploying the National Guard to help provide additional security forces at the southern border.

While this is improving the situation a bit, ranchers are still experiencing break-ins and other dangers from illegals, which has prompted armed militia groups to roll into the Lone Star state to help put the border on lock down.

According to the Dallas News, the presence of the militia hasn’t been a welcomed sight for everyone, as the Texas Democratic congressional delegation wrote a letter to the state’s attorney general demanding that he define the kind of activities that militia can lawfully participate in, and for him to denounce their presence.

In the letter, state Democrats called the militias “lawless” and accused them of perpetuating “the stigma that the border is a war zone.”

Attorney General Greg Abbott shrugged the letter off calling it a “partisan political stunt” and went on to say that rather than whining about the militia, they “should work with their Republican colleagues to secure federal funding for the state’s border security efforts.”

Click here to get a look at what a real immigration reform bill looks like

Boom.

Perhaps the reason there is a stigma about the border being a war zone is because it is one. Violent gang members and drug cartels have attacked Border Patrol agents, not to mention the Mexican military helicopter that opened fire on Americans, making the border a very unsafe place to be.

Truth be told, the militia shouldn’t be down there, because it’s the president’s job to provide all of the proper resources needed to secure the border. Unfortunately, since he refuses to do his job, these individuals are filling in the gap.

If President Obama decides to fulfill his duty and build fencing, deport illegals, and provide additional armed security to seal off the border, perhaps then the militia will go home.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that Texas Democrats need to stop complaining about the militias and start working with Republicans to seal the border.

http://conservativetribune.com/stop-whining-about-militias/

House passes tough immigration bills that “R”esident Obama calls ‘extreme and unworkable’


Steve Scalise, Steve Southerland
 
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of La., left, walks with Rep. Steve Southerland II, R-Fla., from a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Aug. 1, 2014, to discuss the border crisis. House Republicans passed a revised, $694 million bill addressing the surge of immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border after failing to enact an earlier version on Thursday. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Bruce Alpert, NOLA.com | Times-Picayune By Bruce Alpert, NOLA.com | Times-Picayune
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 01, 2014 at 10:26 PM, updated August 01, 2014 at 11:28 PM

 
WASHINGTON — House Republicans adopted legislation late Friday that would address the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border by sending them home via an expedited process and another bill that would end a two-year-old Obama administration policy of freeing from deportation immigrant children who have lived in the United States since 2007. 

But the bill is destined to go nowhere, with the Democratic-led Senate unlikely to even consider it, and President Barack Obama vowing a veto if it somehow made it to his desk. He called the bills “extreme” and “unworkable.”

“As the great-grandson of an Italian immigrant, I’m proud that America is a nation of immigrants, however, we are also a nation of laws,” said new House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson. “The House is the only body that has done its job and shown real leadership in solving this crisis by securing the border and enforcing the rule of law.”

It follows an embarrassing day Thursday when the first GOP immigration bill had to be pulled, just before the scheduled vote. It prompted The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza to write Friday that Scalise had the “Worst Week in Washington” — for having the first major bill he was in charge of as the newly elected majority whip fail. The majority whip is in charge of helping secure GOP votes, and compiling the likely tally. He would have been the GOP leader who warned leadership to pull the bill.

 Scalise spent late Thursday and Friday in meetings with House Republicans, and eventually the two-bill strategy that took a tough stand against illegal immigration won over the Tea Party members who deserted the party’s leadership the day before.

The first bill the House adopted, with only one Democratic vote, would allocate $694 million, far less than the president proposed, while modifying a 2008 anti-human trafficking law to make it easier to deport unaccompanied minors who have flooded across the United States border in recent months. It includes $35 million to reimburse governors for deploying the National Guard at border areas. A separate bill would block the Obama administration from continuing to implement a 2012 executive action, known as the Deferred Acton for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which puts off most deportations for children who arrived in the United States before 2007.

It prevents the Obama administration from expending any funds for DACA, to authorize work permits for illegal immigrants or offer up any new deferred deportation programs.

Republicans say the president didn’t have the authority to enact the program.

But the bill is a non-starter in the Democratic controlled Senate, and Democrats called it cruel, suggesting the GOP would pay a price with the growing rolls of Hispanic voters.

“Instead of working together, instead of focusing on the 80 percent where there is agreement between the Democrats and Republicans, between the administration and Congress, House Republicans, as we speak, are trying to pass the most extreme and unworkable versions of a bill that they already know is going nowhere, that can’t pass the Senate, and that if it were to pass the Senate, I would veto,” Obama said at a news conference Friday.

“They know it. They’re not even trying to actually solve the problem. This is a message bill that they couldn’t quite pull off yesterday, so they made it a little more extreme so maybe they can pass it today, just so they can check a box before they’re leaving town for a month.”

The president said he would have to work out a solution to the border crisis on his own — moving federal funds around.

 Republicans said their emphasis on border security is required.

“More than 90,000 illegal aliens have flooded the U.S.-Mexican border,” said Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, who is running for the Senate. “President Obama is granting executive amnesty. The Senate left town doing nothing. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted to secure the border with National Guard and border patrol police, end President Obama’s executive amnesty and close loopholes that allow the President to ignore the intent of the law.”

He and Scalise called on the Senate to return from its summer recess, which began Thursday night, and act on the immigration crisis.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, said the GOP approach to move quickly to deport young children, many of whom crossed the border unaccompanied, isn’t consistent with the Christian values many Republicans say are their guiding principles.

“We in this country don’t let a 10-year-old go on a field trip to the zoo without a parental permission slip and we don’t let them go to a PG-13 movie without an adult,” Richmond said. “But we’re going to allow kids as young as five-years-old to self deport without any counsel or family consent.”

“We’re heading into moral bankruptcy,” he said.

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, said that the House is acting appropriately to secure the border.

“This bill directs the majority of its funding to security and enforcement while ensuring those who have broken the law are detained, tried, and deported in an expedited manner,” Boustany said. “If the President refuses to enforce the law, inviting this crisis at our doorstep, the House will use the power of the purse to compel him to act.”

The $694 million spending bill passed 223-189, with only four Republicans voting no and one Democrat yes. All five Louisiana Republicans — Scalise, Boustany, Cassidy, John Fleming of Minden and Vance McAllister of Swartz voted for the bill, with Richmond casting a no vote.

The bill ending the president’s deportation relief for children in the United States since 2007 passed 216-192, with 11 Republican voting against the legislation, and four Democrats voting yes. The breakdown for the Louisiana delegation was the same as for the first bill – all the Republicans voting yes and Richmond voting no.

Bruce Alpert is the Washington-based reporter for NOLA.com/The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at balpert@nola.com

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/house_passes_tough_immigration.html

A Really Hateful Letter To The Texas Democrats Who Slandered The United States Civilian Militias


To The Questionably Honorable US Texas Representative,

Joaquin Castro of San Antonio,

Pete Gallego of Alpine,

Lloyd Doggett of Austin,

Filemon Vela of Browsnville,

Beto O’Rourke of El Paso,

Henry Cuellar of Laredo,

Ruben Hinojosa of Mercedes,

Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas,

Al Green, Gene Green and Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston

Marc Veasey of Fort Worth.

I am utterly appalled at the pathetic letter you and your collegues penned to The TX Attorney General to “denounce” me and the militia of concerned citizens over one unfortunate video made by an angry American who has EVERY RIGHT to be angry. Using that same video over and over and over instead of moving on and following the many good things that are going on with the militia units who are on the border due to YOU AND THE GOVERNMENT NOT DOING YOUR DAMN JOBS.

Now that you have INCONVENIENCED ME AND MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF CONCERNED AMERICAN CITIZENS ALSO KNOWN AS THE  VERY LEGAL & LAWFUL UNORGANIZED CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA AND THE ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND ALSO KNOWN AS WE THE PEOPLE.

You have the gall to treat us as tho we are nothing but a bunch of lawless individuals who are threatening the Constitutional Laws of America and Texas? You and your ilk make me sick and I hope to see you out of office the sooner the better. You and the other 11 US TX Reps are, in my opinion, anti-American, unconstitutional OATHBREAKERS!!! You cry “Where is your Hispanic Pride”? My question to you is WHERE IS YOUR AMERICAN PRIDE!!!

Perhaps, if you and your colleagues had been doing you damn jobs to begin with instead of finding ways to pervert The Constitution and our immigration laws, then perhaps those scary “hate-based, racist, child hating, violent, vigilante, lawless militias”, AS YOU THINK TO CALL THEM, who are trying to protect their country, would not have felt the need to drop what they were doing and step up to do what YOU should have done YEARS AGO!!

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMIGRATION LAWS & SECURE THE DANG BORDER !!!

That is what you called us isn’t it? Did I forget one? Let’s see, what did you call me and all the other concerned citizens who were forced to stop what they were doing in life in order to do YOUR DANG JOB and defend America? You called me Hate based? Racist? Vigilante? Violent? Lawless? Sounds like you might be describing your scummy ineligible, criminal fraud mohamed loving jihad domestic terrorist of them all, claiming to be an American president to be sure. Perhaps you were you looking in the mirror while you thought up those ugly little names…

AND I believe you also called me Anti-government? Why? Because I DO NOT CONSENT to be governed by criminals calling themselves lawmakers? Perhaps you think I am anti-government because i refuse to be ruled by tyrants who are violating The Constitution and trying to control We The People at every turn… We The People ARE NOT ANTI-GOVERNMENT, WE ARE ANTI-TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND THERE IS A BIG BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO

gov rules vs contitutional rights

Yah, I don’t take too kindly to OATHBREAKERS (such as yourself) calling me and my rightfully angry, frustrated & inconvenienced fellow American border defenders names like lawless and hate based. They are here out of LOVE OF COUNTRY (SOMETHING YOU SADLY LACK) They would not be here at all if it werent for THE GOVERNMENTS LACK OF ACTION over a long period of time. It is bad enough that we are so angry we feel we must not only DO THE JOB YOU WERE AND ARE BEING PAID TO DO and being forced to defend ourselves and our American Constitution & our Texas Constituional Laws and National borders from foreign invaders who are criminally breaking our immigration laws, but, we must also be forced to defend our right to exist Constitutionally to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWLESS AND CRIMINAL OBAMA FEDERAL REGIME OF TYRANNY, as well as, from BAD LEGISLATORS (such as yourselves).

Yah, I don’t take too kindly to OATHBREAKERS (such as yourself) calling me slanderous and provocative names such as those in your little letter…I reckon I do tend to get somewhat hateful towards the likes of oathbreaking, anti-American  pretenders of Liberty such as yourselves. NEWSFLASH for you brainiacs, YOU ARE THE LAWLESS ONES. You are the ones violating The Constitution and offending We The People at every turn.

RACIST??? REALLY?? Only “racists” actually use that word and all I can say to that is. I AM RUBBER YOU ARE GLUE.. YOU CAN CALL ME THAT BUT IT WILL STICK TO YOU.

If you want to be an American then BE AN AMERICAN don’t expect me to speak Spanish or Arabic in my own land . SPEAK ENGLISH! (For your information I learned to speak Spanish when I moved so close to the Texas/Mexico border out of courtesy to the locals and to help me fit in to my new home.) BUT. THAT’S JUST ME.

HOWEVER….I’m not going to lower my standards so I can BE “EQUAL” to anyone so why don’t you just ‘UP YOURS’ instead.  and DO NOT EXPECT ME TO ACCEPT THE LAWS OF A FOREIGN LAND SUCH AS SHARIA HERE IN AMERICA EITHER!! It is TOO ridiculous to even consider. AGAIN DO YOUR DAMN HOMEWORK ON SHARIA FOR A CHANGE. If you want to implement and live under sharia then move to a country that has that for their law.

CHILD HATING???   What kind of loving parent is going to send a small child on an arduous 1700 mile journey thru the unknown with a coyote? One third of all the girls are raped on the way here for your information. You have the gall to call me the child hater??? Do your homework for a damn change. LESS THAN 30% of the illegals are actually children.. The rest are cartels members, child, drug and gun traffickers, violent criminals, gangbangers, AND mohamedist jihad terrorist types who like to blow stuff up, hide in mosques, plotting death to infidels and the destruction of America and my way of life. LITTLE CHILDREN??

These “loving parents” who sold their children to human child slaving traffickers knew EXACTLY how dangerous it is to the point they gave their female children  contraceptives before they abandoned them to the coyotes to devour. Obama not only traffics guns to American enemies like drug cartels, jihadists and terrorist organizations but he is also TRAFFICKING CHILDREN!!! Do you honestly believe the militia is out to murder innocent children?? RIDICULOUS!

CHILD HATING??? If you mean that I will not tolerate AMERICAN children being stuffed into ALREADY over-crowded classrooms with disease carrying, non-English speaking, illegal, alien, foreigners who have NO RESPECT FOR AMERICA OR AN EDUCATION then you are correct. This is doing nothing but slowing down American kids education and holding them down to a lower standard in an attempt that the others “catch up”. Have a look at this. Then go over it in your mind as many times as you have done that angry video that Chris Davis posted.

OH AND JUST FYI Common Core is Herd Mentality 101 and easily comparable to psychological abuse of a child. Another commie attempt to control and destroy individuality and American Spirit.

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME, MY FRIENDS AND MY BORDER DEFENDERS CHILD HATERS.. when there are dead children washing up on the shores of The Rio Grande. It sure as hell is not because of the concerned American Constitutionally LAWFUL unorganized citizen militias down here having a look around to find out for themselves what is really going on down here. It isn’t the concerned  American Constitutionally LAWFUL unorganized citizen militias who have no choice but to don a mask to protect themselves and their families identies from the gangbangers and cartel criminals you so falsely and repeatedly call “little children” who are threatening American landowners.  Do you honestly think lawful American citizens are here threatening small children and women!! PROPAGANDA MUCH??? PATHETIC!!

OR DO YOU JUST NOT DO ANY RESEARCH AT ALL?? THE CARTELS THREATEN OUR LEGAL AMERICAN LANDOWNERS AND SHOOT AT OUR LOYAL BORDER PATROL WITH 50 CALIBER WEAPONS!

Oh that’s right, you were too busy at that URGENT ribbon cutting ceremony to check into what’s REALLY going on down here. IT IS A WAR ZONE DOWN HERE whether you admit it or not. AND Innocent children from other countries are being lured here, abused by child traffickers, raped, murdered or simply die of exhaustion from the arduous journey falsely touted and promoted by obama the fake American. YOUR SCUMBAG IDOL OBAMA created this disaster and he didn’t care how many kids died to make it happen. THE HATER OF ALL THINGS AMERICAN!!

Obama is like the proverbial serial arsonist who goes around setting fires then pretends to show up just in time to ‘rescue’ the victims from the flames he edangered them with. PATHETIC!! You are complicite to this lawlessness!! The American Consitutionally LAWFUL militia of concerned American ciitizens did NOT sell our children to drug cartels to be trafficked and abused. If you are searching for the soulless monster to blame, simply go look in the mirror at your own reflection or have a look at a picture of your false messiah mr obama the fake American president.


We truly live in a lawless nation.  According to federal law, it is illegal to encourage or induce illegal immigrants to enter the United States, and it is also illegal to either be engaged in or aiding and abetting the “domestic transportation” or “harboring” of illegal immigrants.  In other words, many of our top politicians and a whole host of federal officials should be going to prison.  The following comes directly from the Justice Department

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Domestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Knowledge — Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. §  1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/according-to-federal-law-many-of-our-politicians-should-be-in-prison-for-aiding-and-abetting-illegal-immigration

Read the full letter here, which is signed by U.S. Rep.’s Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, Pete Gallego of Alpine, Lloyd Doggett of Austin, Filemon Vela of Browsnville, Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, Henry Cuellar of Laredo, Ruben Hinojosa of Mercedes, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, Al Green, Gene Green and Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston and Marc Veasey of Fort Worth.

http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Texas-Democratic-Congressional-delegation-calls-5657492.php

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Democrats-Texas-AG-militias/2014/08/01/id/586345/

http://article.wn.com/view/2014/07/30/Texas_Democratic_Congressional_delegation_calls_on_Greg_Abbo/

You mad yet? GOOD! Join the club. Being the liberal that you are, it stands to reason that, a few solid facts should be enough to fry your tiny little ANTI-AMERICAN, OATHBREAKING, RACE-BATING, UNCONSTITUTIONAL brains.

10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

founder george mason what is militia “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment to Constitution of the United States.

IT’S CALLED THE LAW!!

miltia code chapter 13

First off ~

While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm

When The Federal Government AND The Texas State Government won’t uphold the CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OF THE LAND then it is left up to WE THE PEOPLE to defend ourslves from a negligent, unlawful, treasonous government who do not have American best interest at heart.

Remember us? WE THE PEOPLE are the ones you work for.

You know. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who pay you a salary to do a specific job.

WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who trusted you to keep a sacred OATH OF OFFICE UNDER GOD to protect and defend our beloved Constitution. The same Constitution that WE THE PEOPLE of The United States want UPHELD.. Come Hell or High Water. Yah, We The People. YOUR BOSS. You want to make us out to be the enemy? REALLY?? The Honorable True United States Constitutional &  LAWFUL Unorganized Militia has the right to exist. Therefore, to ‘denounce’ the militias is just one more attack on The Constitution and your ugly little race baiting name calling isn’t gonna change that fact..

TREE OF LIBERTY IS THIRSTY

Perhaps, it truly is time to water The Tree of Liberty with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants. Question is, which are you? Will you uphold your oath to We The People or will you choose to treat us as the enemy? I would think about that very carefully if I were you. You are not exempted from this tyranny. You will be one of the first to be hanged or beheaded by your own co-conspiring anti-American commie jihad pals who are holding power over you. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. As soon as the enemy takes power you will be among the first that your deviant masters will murder or imprison. You are much better off with We The People. Where is your honor? Where is your American Pride? What happened to your oath of office & pledge? Are you being black-mailed into compliance or are so many of my Honorable Representatives truly so twisted & DISHONORABLE!!!

Don’t try to sell me any crap about violence when you are permitting violent criminals into America illegally from foreign countries to threaten and commit crimes daily against peaceful Americans. Americans are being threatened here EVERYDAY and suffering at the hands of the violent individuals you call  falsely call “little children”. We The People are not going to be punching bags or victims.


AND DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE CRIMINAL OF CRIMINALS ERIC HOLDER.

https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/arrest-eric-holder-the-criminal-scumbag-of-the-doj/

https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/operation-patcon-fbi-anti-patriot-false-flag-terrorism-eric-holder-manipulating-the-american-mind/


We’re All Criminals and Outlaws in the Eyes of the American Police State

RIGHTS? WHAT RIGHTS?

READ THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT!

YOUR RIGHTS HAVE EXPIRED!

http://thelastgreatstand.com/lgs/2014/08/07/were-all-criminals-and-outlaws-in-the-eyes-of-the-american-police-state/

Did you sign off on to this anti-American traitorous piece of Liberty killing legislation? Well, let’s just see if you did or not. Hmmmmm.  681 pages long. Did you even bother to read it? Or were you going to just “Pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.” Here again, you are all like bad students who won’t do their homework. Well, We The People give you an “F” because you are lazy and negligent in your duty to protect and defend our Country and Constitution and our American way of life.

How about obamacare? Did you sign it I wonder?

pelosi shoving more legistlature down our throats

Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but, Isn’t actually READING legislation part of your job description?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf

The 2014 NDAA also includes a new provision, which appears to bolster the national security surveillance state. Section 1071(a) authorizes the Defense Department to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center’.” Using the dangerously broad terms now typical of national security policy parlance, the Conflict Records Research center enables the DoD to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Who gets to be a surveillance target – the specific remit of “now or once hostile” – is troublingly ill-defined and unrestricted.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15829-house-passes-14-ndaa-nsa-surveillance-will-lead-to-indefinite-detention

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h244

NDAA HOPE YOU DONT GET INDEFINITELY DETAINED

Let’s just have a little look-see at what’s what and who’s who here in The Great State of Texas and who voted to indefinitely detain American citizens like me who disagree with tyranny.

NDAA 2014

Texas
No   R   Gohmert, Louie TX 1st
No Vote   R   Poe, Ted TX 2nd
Aye   R   Johnson, Sam TX 3rd
Aye   R   Hall, Ralph TX 4th
Aye   R   Hensarling, Jeb TX 5th
Aye   R   Barton, Joe TX 6th
Aye   R   Culberson, John TX 7th
Aye   R   Brady, Kevin TX 8th
Aye   D   Green, Al TX 9th
Aye   R   McCaul, Michael TX 10th
Aye   R   Conaway, Michael TX 11th
Aye   R   Granger, Kay TX 12th
Aye   R   Thornberry, Mac TX 13th
Aye   R   Weber, Randy TX 14th
No   D   Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
Aye   D   O’Rourke, Beto TX 16th
Aye   R   Flores, Bill TX 17th
Aye   D   Jackson Lee, Sheila TX 18th
Aye   R   Neugebauer, Randy TX 19th
Aye   D   Castro, Joaquin TX 20th
Aye   R   Smith, Lamar TX 21st
Aye   R   Olson, Pete TX 22nd
Aye   D   Gallego, Pete TX 23rd
Aye   R   Marchant, Kenny TX 24th
Aye   R   Williams, Roger TX 25th
Aye   R   Burgess, Michael TX 26th
Aye   R   Farenthold, Blake TX 27th
Aye   D   Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
No Vote   D   Green, Gene TX 29th
Aye   D   Johnson, Eddie TX 30th
Aye   R   Carter, John TX 31st
Aye   R   Sessions, Pete TX 32nd
Aye   D   Veasey, Marc TX 33rd
Aye   D   Vela, Filemon TX 34th
Aye   D   Doggett, Lloyd TX 35th
No   R   Stockman, Steve TX 36th

UNBELIEVABLE!!!! 


Steve Stockman, Ruben Hinojosa, Good Ol’ Louie Gohmert (He’s my fave!) and two not voting. So 3 + 2 maybes = a grand total of FIVE LEGISLATORS out of THIRTY SIX who aren’t trying to indefinitely detain me or take my Liberty from me, or from my Fellow Legal American Citizens or from my Future American Generations.

I’m not going to even try to defend myself from your ridiculous attack on my character and honorable intentions about protecting my country and defending her Constitution from a bunch of ANTI-Constitutional, ANTI American, name calling provocatuers calling themselves Honorable Texas Legislators (such as yourselves). YOU ARE THE LAWLESS ONES!! YOU ARE THE CRIMINALS!! (See? I can call names too. It is a shame when I must lower myself to your level to communicate and get your attention.)

Investigate me all you want. Lock me up for not conforming to your liberal whims or for not believing your pathetic attempts to cover up the truth. I told the truth and I’m not going to stop telling people the truth. If you can’t handle it, then go have another little crying, screaming, hissy fit of a temper tantrum then get over it already! Do your job and the maybe the militia wouldn’t feel the need to do it for you. CAPEESH?

gov YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN YOUR PLACE

The militia are not only Constitutional and Legal and Lawful but are also Essential to the maintainance of a free State. Militia is only a bad word if you are a tyrant. Well? Are you a tyrant or are you a free American? UPHOLD YOUR OATH!! DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICA!!!

JFK MILITIAS

Sincerely, Kelli D Gordon III% from McAllen, TX

According To Federal Law, Many Of Our Politicians Should Be In Prison For Aiding And Abetting Illegal Immigration


According To Federal Law, Many Of Our Politicians Should Be In Prison For Aiding And Abetting Illegal Immigration

 

We truly live in a lawless nation.  According to federal law, it is illegal to encourage or induce illegal immigrants to enter the United States, and it is also illegal to either be engaged in or aiding and abetting the “domestic transportation” or “harboring” of illegal immigrants.  In other words, many of our top politicians and a whole host of federal officials should be going to prison.  The following comes directly from the Justice Department

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Domestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Knowledge — Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. §  1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/according-to-federal-law-many-of-our-politicians-should-be-in-prison-for-aiding-and-abetting-illegal-immigration

CRIMINAL RAP SHEET

 

NDAA 483 congressmen signed away our rights

%d bloggers like this: