rect
Patriot News
                Network.jpg
Patriot Party
                Political.jpg
American Patriot Party, State Elections
                        Division Candidates Oregon State
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Another
                        Arm THIN BANNER.jpg
AmericanPatriotColumn.jpg

American Patriot MILITIA.jpg

American Patriot Party, State
                                  Elections Division Candidates Oregon
                                  State
American Patriot Wiki 1.jpg
American Patriot Party 7.jpg
American Party Peoples.jpg
Wikipedia Patriot Patriot.jpg
Voting Third Party.jpg
Secretary of State Of.jpg
American Elections Wiki.jpg
Patriot Party Parties.jpg
American Elections Cr.jpg
AmericanPatriotElection.jpg
American Elections Ct.jpg
AmericansPatriotElections.jpg
Division of Power.jpg
Fundamental Laws of Freedom.jpg
Republics and Represention.jpg
Privileges and Contracts.jpg
True American Patriotism.jpg
Freedom Opinion Consent.jpg
Socialism Defined Am erican.jpg
Slavery American Patriots.jpg
Voluntary Slavery.jpg
Existence of Slavery.jpg
Distant Legislatures.jpg
Patriots PoliticalLeftRight.jpg
Wards of the State.jpg
Enterprises of Ambition.jpg
Pretense of Authority.jpg
ThePatriotsContract.jpg
States Liberty Bill.jpg
APP A TAX - Anonymity Tax.jpg
County Secession Constelati.jpg
Two Candidate Vote Option.jpg
ThePatriotsRecruiting.jpg
Magna Carta 1215.jpg
English Bill of Rights 1689.jpg
John Locke Tolleration 1689.jpg
John Locke Treatise Civil.jpg
Rights of the Colonists1772.jpg
Witherspoon Confederation.jpg
VA Declaration of Rights.jpg
Witherspoon Providence 1776.jpg
Declaration of Independence.jpg
Articles of Confederation.jpg
MS Declaration of Rights.jpg
Founders Letters of Intent.jpg
Ratifying Conventions 1788.jpg
VirginiaRatifying Conventionjpg
US Constitutional Compaign.jpg
Bill of Rights &
                                  Amendments.jpg
VirginiaKentuckyResolution.jpg
PatriotsRecruitsScout.jpg
American Patriot Party 9.jpg
PatriotsRecruitsScouts.jpg
APP Opposition Issues Party.jpg
AmericanPatriotsElection.jpg
APP Special Reports.jpg
APP Commentary & Insight.jpg
APP Internet Posts Articles.jpg
APP Cartoons &
                                  Illustration.jpg
American Patriot Party 6.jpg
American Patriot Party 3.jpg
APP YouTube Video Choices.jpg
AmericanPatriotElections.jpg
State Party Organization.jpg
American Patriots Election.jpg
American Patriot Party 5.jpg
What Makes Us Different.jpg
American Elections Wi.jpg
PatriotsRecruiters.jpg
APP Products &
                                  Merchandise.jpg
ThePatriot.jpg
American Patriot Party Logo.jpg
APP Graphics Logo &
                                  License.jpg
American Patriot Party 8.jpg
ThePatriotReview.jpg
Constitution.org.jpg
University of Chicago Const.jpg
ThePatriotStarring.jpg
Cornell University Federal.jpg
Federal Law Reference.jpg
Federal Law Research.jpg
Federal Regulations Code.jpg
ThePatriotDraftPick.jpg
American Patriot Party 4.jpg
Armory Arms Firearms Sales .jpg
American Offense Defense.jpg
APP Communication Directive.jpg
APP Defense Preparedness.jpg
Logistics.jpg
Sampson & Redoubt
                                  Defense.jpg
Self
                                  Sufficiency.jpg
APP Volunteer Patriots.jpg
International Independence.jpg


patriots

ThePatriotVideoPick.jpg  

 

 

 

ThePatriotsDraftChoice.jpg   

PatriotRevolution.jpg   

 

 

PatriotsFacebook.jpg   

 

PatriotsTwitter.jpg   

 

PatriotsYouTube.jpg   

 

 

PatriotAmericanRevoltion.jpg   

 

 

 

AmericanPatriotNewsFeed.jpg   

 

 

AmericanRevolution.jpg   

 

 

 

DeclarationIndependence.jpg   

 

IndependenceGunRights.jpg   

 
APP Opposition Groups:

    Southern Poverty Law Center - The Center for Propaganda for Socialism in America which opposes CITIZEN MILITIAS

    This is in Opposition of the Constitution as it was written and against the principles of Common Law... A REVERSE HATE GROUP -

    LINK:

    SPL #1
    SPL #2 patriot-movement
    SPL #3 intelligence-files
    SPL #4

         This group say they want to protect  on one hand - but then allow the deviant of society to brain wash and then misuse others or each other outside the Laws of Nature; Allowing for the existence of Voluntary Slavery  and Slavery - Through the relinquishment of inalienable rights. This Group, Communist / Socialist in nature,  places a form of "Subjugated Peace" under a central national government;  Instead of abiding by the True Principles of Freedom established in small well represented and independent republics;

     See
    John Locke with regard to such a "peace"  word search LAMB on his Second Treatise on Civil Government.

    They are a proponent of reverse hate; and are a proponent for the use of National Federal force, accumulated by government "laws" which have been created without authority  - i.e. under the
    PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY.

    See Virginia Resolution, James Madison, denouncing when the government makes itself, and not the Constitution the Measure of its powers.
     

 

 

PatriotPatriotHighlights.jpg   

 

 

 

 

ThePatriotTheMovieThe.jpg

True Patriot The Official.jpg

George Mason  6-16-1788: Who are the MILITIA? They consist NOW of the "WHOLE PEOPLE"..." See quotes and source link regarding MILITIAS at bottom of this page.

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Welcome to the American Patriot Party, the Patriots who follow the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

1.) Strong States as Intended.
2.) Smaller States for Adequate Representation as the Constitution Prescribes, limiting Power of Distant Legislatures.
3.) Stronger Smaller Counties for Local Control.
4.) Limiting the Federal Government to the Delegated Powers of the Original Constitutional Compact:

James Madison - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

"
...I cannot comprehend that the (VERY LIMITED FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE) power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and may "NOT BE MORE" THAN "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. ..."

APP: Think long and hard about that statement.

"...But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL POWERS which are NOT granted (DELEGATED), that they are RETAINED by the STATES. OTHERWISE, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be "PERVERTED TO IT'S DESTRUCTION"."

George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788. READ IT.


FOLLOW AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE!


S
tart supporting American Patriot Party:

Free Membership: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Join/join.html
Donate: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Donate/donate.html



The only party that actually follows the Constitution as it was intended.


No other party will do this.


Compare us to other parties: The American Patriot Party
believes in Constitutional and Common Law Carry of arms for bearing and concealment (the Founders hid their munitions and arms from their government, clearly indicating concealment without registration is an inalienable right) for preservation of self, family, community, freedoms, liberties and property.

George Washington's call for the CITIZENS to manufacture and have readily at hand military grade weaponry for the defense of their freedoms and liberties. See Quotes Below on this page.


The American Patriot Party supports formation and armament of Citizens Militias (all citizens) as intended by the Founders. It is the responsibility of the states and federal government to train and arm the Citizen militias (See: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788); Once trained, military members of the US armed forces have the duty to continue their service as members of the citizen militia where they reside with those that have not had military service, work to train them, and to take their place as James Madison indicates in Federalist #46 as a opposing force to the standing military they once served as well as that of foreign aggression; This is to balance and check the power of our limited government(s). This is not a anti-government stand, or anti-military stand; this is a Constitutional check against the misuse of power by governments acting under a pretense of authority and outside those limited delegated powers given them. Note that if the federal government fails to arm and train the citizens, it is the right and duty of the state, local communities and or citizens to do so - including the right to import arms; including outside the federal pretense of control - which by the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment, the federal government has no control regarding arms
(See: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788).

George Mason Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: "...His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that grievous punishments (LAWS and Laws against guns etc.) would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the (Citizen) militia themselves, and induce them to wish its abolition, which would afford a PRETENSE for establishing a standing army. ..." (APP Note: This has already happened);

John Marshall: "....If Congress neglect our militia (citizens), "we can arm them OURSELVES". CANNOT (the state and or people of) Virginia "import arms? Cannot she put them into the hands of  "HER" militia-men? He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was NOT vested in the states by implication, because, being "possessed of it"  "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "FULLY possessed of it as ever they had been.> And it could NOT be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it". "

See F
ederalist  #46 - James Madison: A 25 to 1 Civilian Power Ratio
over
the Standing Army (MILITARY) is the "minimum power ratio" in any free country and the true definition of what a MILITIA is.

".....The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

"TO THESE"
(The United States Military) WOULD BE "OPPOSED" A (CITIZEN) "MILITIA" amounting to near half a million of "CITIZENS" with "ARMS IN THEIR HANDS", OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM "AMONG THEMSELVES" (CHOSEN BY THE LOCAL CITIZEN'S - NOT MILITARY OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - THE TRUE DEFINITION OF MILITIA ), fighting for their (THE CITIZEN'S) common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a (CITIZEN) MILITIA "thus circumstanced" (25 to 1  ARMED POWER RATIO) could ever be conquered by such a (SMALL) proportion of "regular troops" (i.e. federal US ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES). ...."

Read Federalist #46 in full below on this page
.... Get educated.


-------------------------

Ben Swann - Truth in Media: WHO Created ISIS:




-------------


World Immigration News and Related Videos - a MUST READ!:

When governments deny the existence of a radical violent religious culture and devious acts of war;  and not only invite it, but inject it, into their country.

War is imminent when the governments establish the condition of it.

John Locke, "Second Treatise on Civil Government 1698"

Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government

#211.
HE that will, with any clearness, speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government..."

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


Read John Locke "Second Treatise on Civil Government 1689" http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/locke_civil_government.html and http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Church_State_Man/locke_church_state_man.html so that you can understand the principles of toleration that the Governments of Europe, Britain and the United States have quite apparently forgot.

Toleration has limits.

John Locke on Treatise on Toleration: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Church_State_Man/locke_church_state_man.html

"...#71. Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

#72. Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

#73. It remains that I say something concerning those assemblies which, being vulgarly called and perhaps having sometimes been conventicles and nurseries of factions and seditions, are thought to afford against this doctrine of toleration. But this has not happened by anything peculiar unto the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy circumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These accusations would soon cease if the law of toleration were once so settled that all Churches were obliged to lay down toleration as the foundation of their own liberty, and teach that liberty of conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters of religion either by law or force. The establishment of this one thing would take away all ground of complaints and tumults upon account of conscience; and these causes of discontents and animosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine particularly the heads of these accusations. "..."

-------

Samuel Adams in "The Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772"  http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/rights_of_the_colonists.html summarizes these limits:

Samuel Adams: "In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church"1 & In so much that "Mr. Lock" has asserted, and "proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground", that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these "that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio2 (i.e. a Government within a Government) leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed-- "

This limitation was called for because as Locke presented, following a religious leader from another country (at that time Popes that would have people killed in other countries for heresy) is like having a foreign soldiers following the orders of foreign leaders in your local state and community.

Freedom relies on a set of defined principles based upon the "Laws of Nature" and local interests of local communities for the purpose of local commonwealths; Not distant legislators or leaders.

John Locke: "Chapter 2: "...Of the State of Nature 4. To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection,..."

6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the Law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the State of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

8. And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind; the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him, which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of Nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and, by his example, others from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of Nature."

The Principle of Freedom added by Samuel Adams is this: "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--"

This is the most important addition to the definition of true freedom, as no individual can give up the laws of nature and allow himself to give up (voluntary slavery), or allow others to accept his relinquishment (Slavery), of those rights to any one, or any religion, or any government, or any leader; Period.

Freedom requires consent, but you cannot consent to give up any inalienable right that keeps you free.

Here are a few videos taken from Youtube for your review and see if you can recognize that there are those that will misuse freedom to take away your freedoms.

Ron Paul had the correct statement to our military presence in Iraq; "We marched them over there, we can march them back";

And ask yourself regarding the below videos, would not the same answer by reversing the actions of governments that created this problem be the solution; and let them improve their own countries to their liking if that is what they truly wish to do.

This has nothing to do with racism; it has to do with freedom and free societies vs a religion that does not respect or recognize either; and mirrors the condition that old world Catholics and Papists imposed on those that sought refuge in the new world from religious persecution. 

It is also about governments whose purpose is to protect private property, vacating that purpose by placing huge tax burdens
upon the properties, society and earnings of its citizens. This change of purpose is, by all definitions of civil society, an act of war against their own citizens; and can in no way be an act of a representative government:


John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government:


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

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

...endeavour to grasp themselves, or "put into the hands of any other" (which they do when they force support of immigrants from the money derived from their citizens property and labor), an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this "breach of trust" they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society. ..."




Bone chilling speech about threat of Islam in Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjpcp4gESsU


Must See! Crazy European Immigration Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K4okVa7dU


Storming Spain's Razor-Wire Fence: Europe Or Die (Episode 1/4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqOlxNQABI


ISLAM IN EUROPE AND USA SHOCKING MUST SEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv05D3Yeg_k


Germany Erupts Into Chaos As Protesters Declare "Rapefugees Not Welcome" - Cologne NYE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRkFEMUDwwU


Refugee Invasion Breaking German Culture ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrUh6L3FNgQ


Anti-Islamist Riots in Germany: Hooligans Against Salafists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRZiTreKcCk


Sweden migrant crisis puppy doesn't know the dangers of a tiger!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8iUN_UOuhU


Migrants to Sweden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH1qXW2w4M


Sweeds expossed to Multiculturism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUTe9ZQpYk


Anti-Islamists Demonstrate in Britain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJaiJ_maUEY


Darby England:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77o22bqHTQQ







-----------




American Architects & Engineers
Discuss World Trade Center Building #7.  Join A&E at http://www.ae911truth.org

   
Note: If this video is taken down (again) by YouTube, do a search for Ed Asner 9-11 Solving the Mysteries of WTC World Trade Center #7 to view it until we re-post or view similar videos at http://www.ae911truth.org


Experts Speak Out
- Controlled Demolition is a Fact on World Trade Center Building Number #7







Over 3,000 people died on 911 and no investigations as to what the people and businesses associated with them were involved with...

If even one person was murdered in this same city, what that one person may have been involved in would be thoroughly investigated.


3000 + people are murdered, and there is nothing said about the activities of any of the victims or the companies associated with them.

Manipulation of National Currency, Foreign Currency and Trade can produce serious consequences;

As clearly seen with the "Federal Reserve" investing in Foreign Banks;

All without transparent Civilian or Legislative oversight to scrutinize poor investments or, more importantly, corruption;

Result: We are now 1.264 TRILLION DOLLARS in Debt to China alone (see article below);

Our country is now quaking from the International debt caused by poor legislative governing of American Tax Dollars, poor corporate investments, and corruption associated with those investments;


Building 7 held many records of those companies involved in the World Trade Center.

The video recording of the firemen indicating that the building was going to be purposely collapsed is clear; The way the building falls is unquestionable.


The American Patriot Party promotes having a thorough investigation;

Not only of the buildings, but of the business activities of the victims and those associated with the victims; of the companies and their activities, and of all things leading up to the collapse; to find out what actually occurred, both for the families of the victims and the country.



Watch and listen to this video with it's many professionals. Then you decide.


Join Architects and Engineers
http://www.ae911truth.org

Sign the Petition

-------------------------


American Patriot Party is now posting on FACEBOOK with informative videos and insight to today's issues and events.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-National-Headquarters/174074706883


Remember to share our Facebook link, our articles and "LIKE" our page before returning! Help spread the word.

Educate Yourself to the Constitution as it is correctly defined by the Founders in the Ratifying Conventions; Then Educate Others!


-------------------------


WARNING: United Nations attempting to control United States Citizen's Sovereignty again in:

UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 2030: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

The United Nations is acting as a DISTANT LEGISLATURE to assume power over sovereign nations and remove power from citizens and place them under the direction and power of those people directing and controlling the United Nations.

Remember, ruling by Distant Legislatures, collectivism, socialism and creating dependency are what endanger our freedom's and liberties, as there can be NO representation by Distant Legislatures:

Samuel Adams, Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/rights_of_the_colonists.html:

".....Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without "consent"?

Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament? Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single member to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but DELIBERATELY assumed a power to dispose of their lives, 8 Liberties and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China! Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British parliament, it would only be hurtfull; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at THREE THOUSAND MILES DISTANT from them;

and
who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only "NO natural care for their interest", but must be in effect "BRIBED AGAINST IT"; as every burden they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto many of the Colonists have been free from Quit Rents; but if the breath of a british house of commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels, only for complaining of their grievances; How long such treatment will, or ought to be born is submitted. "

--------

What is it that dissolves governments that are suppose to defend our liberties? John Locke presents this scenario:

--------

John Lock - Second Treatise on Civil Government - 1689:

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

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

---------

APP NOTE:

See Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions 1798:
Read in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

"...2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress (the federal government) a power to punish:

a.)  treason,
b.)  counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.)  piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.)  offenses against the law of nations,

and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,"
(>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) >>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory..."


To guard against states giving away or taking your rights and prepared to defend your rights, states need to be:

1.) small to give Adequate Representation, and
2.) strong to oppose the corruption of Distant (Federal and International) Legislatures.


----------

LOCKE CONTINUED:

#213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth, who misuse the power they have
,..."


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

---------

APP NOTE: The United States are actually Sovereign Independent States, each with their own republic (Which even smaller independent republics can be created i.e. divided and formed into smaller independent states as provided under the Constitution to give adequate representation) - The Constitution does not take that away, as the Constitution is a very LIMITED "COMPACT" See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsletter and Virginia Resolutions 1798 http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates-


Virginia Resolution of 1798

Read in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison:

"...RESOLVED,
That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, AND the CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE,
against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "WARRANTED" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties;
as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them;

and that implications have appeared of
a "design" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES;

and
so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into "ONE SOVEREIGNTY" (APP: i.e. "ONE NATION" - NO WHERE INTENDED by the Founders), the obvious tendency and INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of which would be,

to
>>>"TRANSFORM" the present "republican" "SYSTEM" (of which there are numerous "independent Republics") of the United State"s", into "an absolute", or "at best" a MIXED >>>"MONARCHY". ..."

----------

(APP: a "Mixed Monarchy" is a ruling class which we can see emerging today with two Clintons and three Bush's attempting to monopolize the presidency and control of the United States - this was warned by George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788)

----------

WE ARE NOT ONE NATION:

The above Founders documents show we are NOT "One Sovereignty" and we are NOT "One Nation";

T
his "One Nation" phrase was created by a SOCIALIST Francis Bellamy - See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy in 1892;

SOCIALIST Francis Bellamy served as founding vice president and wrote several articles for the Society of Christian Socialists' newspaper, "the Dawn";

The Pledge of
Allegiance that was written by the SOCIALIST Francis Bellamy, See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance


W
hen compared with the Founders
Original intent
as spoken by James Madison above in the Virginia Resolutions 1798 and in The Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 show how far we have strayed from the true definition of free republics, liberty and freedom as defined in the Original Founding Documents and Original LIMITED Constitutional COMPACT.

O
ur states when they transfer undelegated powers to the federal government and federal governments, dissolve themselves when they attempt to make us "One Nation", OR when either of them attempt to transfer the authority given to them into the hands of the United Nations as clearly explained here by Locke.

A more accurate pledge would be one that would follow the written intent and principles of freedom and indicate the flag follows those principles, and one that would not lend itself to blind nationalism; or blindly following a image of a flag whose legislatures change the meaning of on a regular basis; or to any such blind national socialism;

This pledge
would be and we propose:



New Pledge
of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to those Inalienable Rights respecting the Laws of Nature, which defines the Flag of the United States of America;

and to protecting our Free Common Law Societies in which they consent to form; Independent State Republics, United under God, with liberty and justice for all."

     Richard Taylor - American Patriot Party


----------



LOCKE CONTINUED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence and compare 223-226:

" ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to THROW OFF such government  and to provide new guards for their future security.)

LOCKE CONTINUED: "...to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine;
and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted."



-------------------------


CBC SPECIAL REPORT: Global Warming Doomsday Called Off:

Part 1 of 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
Part 2 of 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
Part 3 of 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
Part 4 of 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
Part 5 of 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro

The Great Global Warming Swindle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg



John Locke - #201:

"It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that;

for
WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to "other ends",

and
made use of to "IMPOVERISH", "HARASS", or "SUBDUE" them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands of those that have it,

THERE it presently becomes TYRANNY,

whether
those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better." ..."



-------------------------



                                               FROM DEBT - TO DEFENSELESSNESS - TO SLAVERY
                         UNITED STATES FINANCES CHINA'S MILITARY BUDGET
                                           ON DEBT INTEREST ALONE

                                                                         2013 DEBT to CHINA: 1 TRILLION 264.9 BILLION


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

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/apr/26/randy-forbes/randy-forbes-says-us-pays-china-739-million-day-de/

"...Forbes based his comments on fiscal 2011, in which the CBO estimates the government will spend $225 billion, or $616,438,356 per day, on interest payments. China held 12.1 percent of public debt at the end of February. So if the 2011 estimates hold and China holds the same proportion of debt throughout the year, it would receive about

$74.4 million per day
.
..."



That is 26 BILLION 156 MILLION A YEAR IN INTEREST ALONE ALREADY PAID - BACK IN 2011 !!!


Investments the Chinese make with this money compounds the danger TEN FOLD TIMES TEN.


Free trade is fine.

Handing our Country for free to the Chinese or reducing our defense by empowering a Communist Country to our eventual demise is NOT.


Presently, the interest owed on money borrowed from China and being paid to China, is financing a large percentage of the CHINESE MILITARY.

Interest to the debt owed to China By 2020, if not curtailed, can and will finance the ENTIRE CHINESE ANNUAL MILITARY BUDGET
:


http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/28/misconceptions-about-china-s-growth-in-military-spending/g76a


"
As another example, in 2012 China published a defense budget of RMB 670.274 billion, with an increase from 2011 of RMB 67.604 billion and a growth rate of 11.2 percent. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-05/china-boosts-defense-spending-as-military-modernizes-its-arsenal.html

2013: "....Military spending is set to rise this year to 740.6 billion yuan ($119 billion) from 669.1 billion yuan, the Ministry of Finance said in a report. China has the second-biggest military budget in the world after the U.S., which spent nearly six times more on defense than China last year and is now cutting those outlays. ..."


We are presently financing and arming our potential futu
re enemies IN MASS.


------------------------


John Birch Society's eye opening Video on the SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center





Support John Birch Society: http://www.jbs.org

We strongly advocate also supporting the Constitution Society: http://www.constitution.org for their vast available free records and documents of the Founders.


-------------------------





                          CHINA ARMED BY US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
                          US CITIZENS DISARMED BY STATE & US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT



APPARENTLY OUR STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES BELIEVE THE CHINESE MILITARY HAVE A GREATER RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND SELF PRESERVATION THAN THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Our Federal and State SO CALLED Representatives are financing through wasteful spending, lavish salary raises and retirements, forced taxation to pay for forced UNION "MAXIMUM" WAGES, WASTEFUL CORPORATE CONTRACTS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NEEDLESS UNENDING WARS and DEBT CREATED BY THESE to which the interest owed China is now the Arming of Chinese with Machine guns, Tanks, Cannons, Missiles, Jet fighters and Nuclear Arsenals;

ALL WHILE passing laws here to prohibit citizens from
from owning even a machine gun to defend ourselves, communities and countries.

How more stupid and ignorant can those "so called" "REPRESENTATIVES" "you" have elected be?

But it is a fact that these representatives are not "stupid and ignorant", but fully aware and calculating;


These Representatives, every one, are guilty of rendering aid to our enemies;

These representatives, every one, are guilty of the crimes of treason; Those who support or protect them in any fashion bear the same title - your duty to a "job" does not exceed your DUTY to uphold the Constitution or Essential Natural Rights which exceed even the Constitution as our Founders have established.

Neither retirement nor time can reduce these crimes these corrupted representatives have already committed.




                            Are you ready to READ and LEARN?


ARE YOU READY TO VOTE FOR ("so called" by the Socialist Collectives Left and Socialist Corporates Collectives False Right )
"RADICAL" Constitutionalism the Founders readily PRESCRIBED;

YET? ...YES?    
 
     


OR......Maybe you want to "wait" just a "little longer"?... and "hope" it gets "better"......


NO?

Then how ready are you to put the federal government back in it's
"10 MILE SQUARE BOX" intended for the federal government and all their "DEPARTMENTS";

Before they Enslave you to a point you cannot even defend yourself?


Don't Know what >>>>>>> "BOX" I speak of?  ......... Are You Ready to Learn?    .......Lets see if you are....



Virgina Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
:

JAMES MADISON: (Author of the Constitution) "Mr. Chairman: ...I CANNOT COMPREHEND that the (FEDERAL LEGISLATURES, EXECUTIVE, FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ALL THEIR "DEPARTMENTS")  "power of LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL" "DISTRICT" (Washington , DC - DISTRICT CAPITOL),

which  >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>"TEN MILES SQUARE", ( I.E. ......THE >>>>>>> "BOX"  )

and may >>>"NOT BE" more than "ONE" MILE, (Limit of Physical Structures) will involve the DANGERS which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. ..."



SEE THE PHYSICAL LIMITS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Getting smarter? Want to learn more? Keep Reading and Read the Links provided as well.

Right now, even those that are being propped up as "Patriotic",
are setting you up for another fall. 

How? Because most of the Citizenry have never read what real freedom is; and they are using that ignorance to set you up.

"RAND" Paul and including such others as Matt Kibbe - Freedomworks, Mike Huckabee, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck,  Mark Levin and others; who are promoting a UNCONSTITUTIONAL "UN-ENUMERATED" FLAT SALES TAX or "FAIRTAX" that will "SHOE HORN" the federal governments control over the states and local communities;

Which is very foolish and IGNORANT.


See more on Taxes Below.
 
RAND Paul is also trying to establish and continue to empower "Undelegated federal powers of "certain crimes" 
to unconstitutionally regulate the states and local communities;

SUCH AS - EXCHANGING the regulating power practiced with Roe VS Wade with yet another UN-DELEGATED FEDERAL power over the states, "INSTEAD OF" simply removing the "unconstitutional Federal Power" that enforces Roe vs Wade and replace it with "NOTHING"; and then let the local communities regulate it
;

FACT: The Federal Government is
LIMITED to DEFINING OR PROSECUTING "ONLY FOUR" CRIMES
in the Constitution Article 1 - Section 8; and in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS in the Kentucky Resolutions - Par.#2);  Any other power arrogates a unconstitutional power;

By placing the issues where they belong - WITH THE STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES - it  would resolve many of the "just issues" Rand wishes to accomplish;

Simply continuing to give issues to a federal court;  Giving to it authority to decide where it has absolutely NO Constitutional authority, is not the way. This simply allows the federal government to arrogate or continue to arrogate undelegated powers under a "PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY".



                                                        CAUTION

NOTE THAT EVERY OTHER PARTY (and almost every talk show host and public figure) is following and promoting distorted and deceptive definitions of the Constitution. Claiming to defend the Constitution on one hand, while continuing to hack at the Constitution's roots with the other.

ONLY the AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY is following the Founders INTENT, Constitutional Ratified Blueprint, Common Law Definitions of True Free Societies and that of Independent Local and Well Representative Constitutional Republics.

Read us and see for yourself.

If you trust yourself to any other party or organizational leadership, you WILL be misled and deceived.





                                                                                TAXES


AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY ON TAXATION:

DO NOT BE TAKEN IN BY NEW
TAX SCHEMES - SUCH AS THE NATIONAL FLAT TAX OR FAIRTAX;

DO NOT LET OLD TAX SCHEMES SUCH AS THE INCOME TAX REMAIN.

THE INCOME TAX:

The INCOME TAX is not unconstitutional because it was, or was not, Ratified by enough states (as often surmised);

The INCOME TAX IS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" "BECAUSE" IT IS A EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED "ARROGATION" OF POWER - OUTSIDE THE LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS GRANTED.

THIS TYPE OF TAX "CANNOT BE RATIFIED" BY THE STATES TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION AND ARROGATE A POWER "NO WHERE INTENDED" UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Changing the "LIMITED" power of "ENUMERATED" taxation which is a DELEGATED POWER,

into a "UNLIMITED" "UN-ENUMERATED" form of taxation OUTSIDE the DELEGATED POWER, is an ARROGATION OF POWER. It is a "NEW POWER", EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.



READ WHERE THE FOUNDERS SAY THIS: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

PATRICK HENRY (WARNS): "...I conjure you once more to remember the admonition of that sage man who told you that, "when you give power you know not what you give". I know the absolute necessity of an energetic government. But is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy to grant unlimited, unbounded authority, which is so totally unnecessary that gentlemen say it will "never be exercised"? But gentlemen say that we must make experiments. A wonderful and unheard-of experiment it will be, to give "unlimited power unnecessarily"! ..." "...The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power. Strike this clause out of the form of the government, and how will it stand? Congress will still have power, by the sweeping (supremacy) clause , to make laws within that {438} place and the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state. I ask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will not enable them to protect themselves from insult. If you grant them these powers, you destroy "every degree of responsibility". They will fully screen them from justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing  them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive  legislation "in all cases whatever"."


EDMUND PENDLETON:
"...I understand that (Supremacy - Sweeping) clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers" (APP: i.e. THE POWER IS LIMITED TO THE DELEGATED POWERS AND THESE CAN NEVER BE CHANGED - THIS IS WHAT MAKES US A REPUBLIC UNDER A "ORIGINAL COMPACT"). What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" DEPART from them(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

GEORGE NICHOLAS: "...If I understand it right, NO "NEW" power can be exercised."

JAMES MADISON: "....The honorable member (PATRICK HENRY) asks,  Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent  for the same purpose. If so, WHAT NEW TERRORS can arise from this particular  clause? It is only a superfluity.

If that
"LATITUDE"
of "CONSTRUCTION" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping (supremacy Article 1 - Section 8)  clause", there "WOULD" be room for those HORRORS.    But it gives "NO" supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers".

"IF" the "DELEGATION" (SET LIMITATIONS) of their powers be "SAFE" (UN-CORRUPTED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT AND FORM)
,
no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory...."

GEORGE NICHOLAS: The gentleman last up (PATRICK HENRY) says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a "special power" of legislation. Therefore, it does "NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They (The Federal Government, Executive, Federal Legislative and Federal Supreme Court) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED" (DELEGATED).

APP: The Ratifying and AMENDMENT PROCESSES of the Constitution were established to make changes "WITHIN" the DELEGATED powers;

These processes were to limit and correct unnecessary power and only WITHIN the DELEGATED powers;

T
hese processes were NEVER MEANT to ARROGATE "NEW" POWERS upon the federal government at the will of the state or federal representatives outside of the very limited DELEGATED powers.





-------------------------


                                                                                                                       
DANGER!



                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
NATIONAL "FLAT TAX"
                                           AND "FAIRTAX" "DECEPTION"




A NATIONAL "FLAT TAX" OR THE "FAIRTAX" WILL ENSLAVE YOU FURTHER;

ATTEMPTS ARE BEING MADE TO DECEIVE YOU BY NATIONAL CORPORATE / UNION MEDIA.


Mark Levin and other talk show hosts (including RAND Paul - Flat Tax) are promoting the FairTax and or Flat Tax. DO NOT BE FOOLED! Like the Income Tax, these are UNENUMERATED tax schemes. Worse yet, these tax schemes invite the federal government into your state to define "WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A BUSINESS"! Using this reasoning will allow the FairTax and Flat Tax to invite and "shoehorn" the federal government right into your home and computer; This is as everything, including your person and labor, will be considered "a business"; opening everyone and everything to be scrutinized by the NEW JOINT Federal / State Hybrid form of the IRS Created by the FAIRTAX and FLAT TAX Systems. The FairTax and Flat Tax systems are BUY, SELL and TRADE TAXES. They further do not get rid of the IRS, they simply change the name to a far more dangerous and invasive bureaucracy. They simply insure that the waste in government continue; Both tax schemes are like the income tax, they use jealousy to sell you into deeper slavery.

The people that are promoting these unconstitutional tax systems are also stating they are for obeying the Constitution. This is clear deception.

Remember - RAND PAUL IS NOT RON PAUL;

RON PAUL as with other true Constitutionalists understand the limitation of the Constitution and want to get rid of the IRS and Income tax and replace them with NOTHING!

This will change everything to the BETTER.

Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck (all promoting the same corporate message), RAND PAUL and other republicans and democrats, as well as special interests such as FREEDOMWORKS, all want to maintain the flow of FLAT PERCENTAGE  UN-ENUMERATED TAX MONEY to the federal government by simply changing the FORM of the IRS. (Even though they "preach" differently).

The FairTax and Flat Tax "Tax Schemes" will CHANGE NOTHING; But they will in fact make things WORSE;

This is because it will give "more invasive power" to the federal government and "tighter grip" over your "local and state laws"!

You will jump from the frying pan into the FIRE!

Every gain in "other areas" against a tyrannical government will mean "NOTHING"; --- "UNLESS" the tyrannical grip upon the "purse strings" are "pried from their fingers"; and the power is returned to the states and local communities so that their CONSENT must be granted to an "ENUMERATED" TAX, "BEFORE" it is directed to be collected - as originally established in the Constitution.


Anything less, will allow the tyrannical government to finance and shield itself from necessary change which will return us to true representative government as the Founders intended.

For more, read our Opposition Issues Page.

Let these talk show hosts and representatives know that this is NOT THE WAY!    

BE RELENTLESS!  


YOU AND THEY - ARE BEING SET UP FOR A FALL!

-------


LET US REVIEW THE FACTS:


The Original Constitution was written to safeguard against such corruption and abuse of power. All taxation had to be ENUMERATED BEFORE CONSENSUALLY being collected, it was also derived from imports, collected simply from viewing the finished product; so your business affairs, income and papers were private:

COMPARE:

-------

Original Constitution:

Article 1 Section 9: "No Capitation, or OTHER direct, Tax shall be laid, "UNLESS" in "Proportion to the Census or "ENUMERATION" herein "BEFORE" directed to be taken. "

....This allows you the time and means to grant your "CONSENT" before it is "taken".

-------

Amended Constitution:


Amendment XVI:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and "WITHOUT REGARD" to any census of "ENUMERATION"."
 

The Federal Government Takes your money FIRST in a "FLAT" PERCENT ...THEN decides what THEY are going to spend it on "AFTER" they TAKE IT. ......"WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT".

-------

Can you SEE THE NECESSITY of ENUMERATED TAXATION!!!  ...The Founders did!!    

SEE THE ARROGATED POWER?! 

SUCH "UN-ENUMERATED" "FLAT PERCENTAGE" TAXATION TAKEN CONTROL OF FIRST, WHERE CONSENT IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO BE OF ANY EFFECT, CAN "NEVER" BE "CONSTITUTIONAL";

AND "RATIFYING" SUCH TAXATION, CAN NEVER BE MADE TO "AMEND" THE CONSTITUTION.

NO MATTER HOW MANY STATES "RATIFY IT"!.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU NAME IT.


NOTE: The income tax was found unconstitutional twice by the Supreme Court before corruption entered and renamed a direct tax a "indirect tax" and used as an excuse to arrogate new powers expressly prohibited - It is in fact still unconstitutional and still an new arrogated power; Further, ALL taxes are DIRECT; a "INDIRECT" tax is simply a "DIRECT" tax taken from you in a different way or made to be taken from you by someone else first -

Redefining a tax as indirect is NO EXCUSE to tax you without your CONSENT or as a "MEANS" to arrogate a taxing and spending power beyond the very limited DELEGATED powers.

Here the Founders establish that creating a new >>>>>>>"MEANS" to "ARROGATE" A NEW POWER (WAY) OF TAXATION is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.



-------

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Mr. EDMUND PENDELTON:
"....With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square (Washington, DC) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them (the federal government) power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof", I understand that clause as
NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by THIS Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by >>>>>>>"NO MEANS" DEPART from them,
(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."


See Also: "Declaration of Independence" - "17th Grievance" Quote below defining Taxation WITHOUT " CONSENT" is TYRANNY.


-------

If the federal government stayed within their  "delegated" powers, funding the necessary expenditures and paying the national debt and national defense would be easy.

Force the federal government stay within the limited DELEGATED powers; Force them by not funding them to be wasteful, manipulative and tyrannical;

Stop paying
for your own enslavement and destruction.

Stop allowing State born
Exclusive Privileges; Get Unions, Corporations and Tax Supported Special Interests out of Government.

Remove ALL Lobbyists from Washington DC. Limit them to your states where they must confront the local citizens of the state and not manipulate our state representatives in our national government in places far distant from the citizens that are most effected by any legislation.

Reduce the size of states so that there is adequate representation and not the manipulative government which occurs from "Distant Legislatures";

"NULLIFICATION" is "the proper remedy" when delegated powers have been exceeded.

See Thomas Jefferson shows us this "BY EXAMPLE" Kentucky Resolutions only a page and a half - CLICK AND READ IT!

See also our Segment "Republics and Representation".


-------

"REMOVE THE INCOME TAX" and REPLACE IT WITH "NOTHING" - "MAKE" THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT "OBEY THE CONSTITUTION" AS IT WAS "FIRST WRITTEN"!


SAY "NO" TO ANY NEW TAX SCHEME!


TAKING MONEY WITHOUT CONSENT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR LAWS; IT IS TYRANNY, THEFT AND CRIME.


"NULLIFICATION" "FORCES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBEY YOUR CONSENT" - USE IT. 


ENFORCE THE RIGHT BY ENGAGING THE STATE AND COUNTY LAWS AND LOCAL JUDICIAL / POLICE FORCE.



-------

Declaration of Independence

The 17th Grievance Defining TYRANNY in Government:


17.) For imposing taxes on us "WITHOUT" "OUR" "CONSENT";

------

Taking money in a FLAT PERCENT FIRST, by ANY METHOD (income, sales etc.),

Then deciding how "they" (the government) will spend your money later, when there is "LITTLE or NO MEANS to say NO";

Can in "NO MEANS" be considered "consent".


------

Learn More on our "APP Opposition Issues Page"!


Review also The Constitutional "A" Tax!


Feel Free to paste this article everywhere so long as it is in it's complete unchanged text and links. Check back as we occasionally update articles.

Spread the Word! Educate Others!

American Patriot Party.CC


Join and Support!



Welcome to the American Patriot Party.

Thank you for Visiting!


We are presently working on our New Web site on a new server block.

Click Here to view our Original Site if a Link is not working - Plus you may want to review our previous front page "Special Reports" yet to be transferred!

Visit Us on Facebook to Watch Choice Videos and Insight!

AmericanPatriotParty150.jpg

Some links will still bring you to our original sight anyway.
We are working to update page links to correct this.

Thank you for your patience.


Here are some defining words from the Founders:

Enjoy and Educate Others!



Lessons of our Founders:






-------------------------

LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER



James Madison - Author of the Constitution - Virginia Resolution 1798
:


"...That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that "AMONG OTHER ESSENTIAL RIGHTS", "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press "CANNOT BE CANCELED", abridged, restrained, OR MODIFIED by "ANY AUTHORITY" of the "United States" (federal government),"

(APP: This includes Executive Orders (which in itself is unconstitutional), Legislative or Supreme Court)

"...and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "SOPHISTRY or AMBITION", having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, ANNEXED to the Constitution; it would mark a "REPROACHABLE" inconsistency, and "CRIMINAL DEGENERACY", if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of ONE OF THE RIGHTS, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a PRECEDENT (UNDER A PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY) which may be FATAL TO THE OTHER (RIGHTS)...."

----------------------
 Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"...On every question of "CONSTRUCTION", let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the DEBATES (i.e. THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS), and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
conform to the "probable one" in which it was passed". "

---------------------
Virginia "Ratifying Convention" 6-16-1788 - George Nicholas: "...Congress have power to define and punish: a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and b.) offenses against the laws of nations; (c.) Treason & d.) Counterfeit of Coin) ....but they (APP: the federal government, executive, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"...."

--------------------

(Thomas Jefferson Repeated this CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION in the
Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 - Paragraph #2 - Please Read it! :


2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having "DELEGATED" to Congress a power to punish:

a.)  treason,
b.)  counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.)  piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas (only), and
d.)  offenses against the law of nations,

and
>>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,)

>>> are "
ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";


and that the power to create, define, and punish such OTHER CRIMES is RESERVED, and, "OF RIGHT", appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory..."

------------------

Virginia "Ratifying Convention" 6-16-1788 - Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this (SWEEPING i.e. SUPREMACY) clause DOES "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN)"MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the >>>"UNION AT LARGE"....

(APP: Think about that,.... then Note that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY to GOVERN POLICE of ANY KIND, OUTSIDE the Washington DC - i.e. what the Founders described as the 10 MILES SQUARE and can make NO LAW that EVEN MAY EFFECT THE CITIZENS of the UNION at LARGE - Here he continues...)

"....But it gives them power over the "LOCAL" police of "THE PLACE", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION of the (SWEEPING i.e. SUPREMACY) clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case WITHIN >>>"THAT DISTRICT" (WASHINGTON, DC). What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "WHERE" IT SHALL "BE". What, then, is the power? "IT IS", that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE", in order to preserve {440} serve the "POLICE" OF "THE PLACE" and their "OWN" "PERSONAL" independence,  that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state WHERE IT SHALL "BE" ,

this is the FAIR "CONSTRUCTION"...." (of the SWEEPING i.e. SUPREMACY clause)

-------------------

FBI, CIA, ATF, ICE etc. All are policing OUTSIDE the 10 miles Square of Washington, DC;

and ALL OUTSIDE FEDERAL LIMITS OF AUTHORITY.

ALL UNDER THE "PRETENSE" OF AUTHORITY.

Any attempt to claim Authority by the Federal Government, which was NOT DELEGATED in the "Original Compact" is an ARROGATION of POWER which is Expressly Prohibited (See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788);

As Thomas Jefferson presented in the Kentucky Resolutions, 1798:

#1: "...this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the (federal) powers delegated to ITSELF (federal government - i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are NOT the final judge); since that would have made "IT'S" (the federal government's) "DISCRETION", and "NOT THE CONSTITUTION", the "MEASURE" of its powers; but that, as in ALL OTHER CASES of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (STATE) has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and "MEASURE" of redress.


-------------------


Not clear enough?


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

JAMES MADISON. (Author of the Constitution) "Mr. Chairman: ...I cannot comprehend that the (FEDERAL LEGISLATURES, EXECUTIVE, FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)  "power of LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL DISTRICT" (Washington , DC), which  >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>TEN MILES SQUARE, and may >>>"NOT BE" more than "ONE" MILE, will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. ..."


Think about that physical limitation the founders intended.

Why this limitation?:



BRUTUS  - (Founder of Freedom 1787 - Robert Yates): http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

"...History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States.

The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over
large territories of country;
and the consequence was, that their governments were CHANGED FROM that of free governments >>> to those of the MOST "TYRANNICAL" that ever existed in the world..."


Now do you understand? If not, Read our Segment "Republics and Representation".



The federal governments "supremacy" powers under the "supremacy (sweeping) clause"  was, and still is, limited to the "10 miles square" of Washington DC.

The supreme law of the "land"? Clearly by the founders own words "LAND" supremacy clause meant ONLY WITHIN The 10 MILES SQUARE and "WITHIN" the DELEGATED powers only.

As established in this day Ratifying Convention (click link for full Convention text) DEPARTMENTS were LIMITED to the 10 MILES SQUARE; the federal government CANNOT GOVERN POLICE outside the 10 miles square; CANNOT "DEFINE", "PRESCRIBE" OR "PROSECUTE" BUT FOUR CRIMES:  1.) Treason, 2.) Piracy on the High Seas (only), 3.) Law of Nations, 4.) Counterfeit of coin;



Can collect TAXES under the "WELFARE CLAUSE" for ONLY 2 THINGS  - NATIONAL DEBT and NATIONAL DEFENSE .


Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" (US Federal) government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those"powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the"general welfare", and under their "OWN" "CONSTRUCTION", say that this was destroying the"general peace", encouraging sedition, and "poisoning the minds of the people"? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press?

(APP: Exactly what happened 10 years after the Constitution in the Alien and Sedition Acts by the federal Government and stopped by the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions"; Such similar attacks on  on the freedom of speech has been recently promoted by today's federal representatives)


Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square,when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not
"extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"?

That Congress should have power to provide for the
general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted to its destruction".

Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions.There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.

It was answered:

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS,  in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the  same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.  He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make  such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and  provide for the common defence;

>that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation",

but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises,

for the "PURPOSE" of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE",

that is, that they could raise (APP: ONLY) AS "MUCH" money as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE",

in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER".

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause contained "NO new grant of power".

To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all,
it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power?

As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL well-regulated communities, (COUNTY, STATE, ANY ORGANIZED COMMUNITIES THAT ESTABLISH CONSENT) determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

If they exceed these powers,
the"JUDICIARY" "WILL" (WHERE ARE OUR LOCAL JUDGES!) declare it "VOID", or "ELSE" "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was misrepresented.

If I understand it right,
NO "NEW" POWER can be EXERCISED.

As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives; and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government"."


Ask yourself.

Is our federal government, through our federal so called representatives, collecting taxes under the "welfare clause" for things "OTHER THAN" the national debt and national defense? ...

Getting smarter?






                                                          PROPERTY RIGHTS AND

                                  
                LIMITATIONS OF CONDEMNATION




Now let us look at the limited power of Condemnation which DEFINITION has been so corrupted by state and federal governments.


The limited condemnation clause was a war powers act for "TEMPORARY" temporary " taking", NOT TO TAKE AND KEEP;

Nor an excuse for state governments to take the meaning to empower themselves or the federal government with the misuse of the term.


Taking property without CONSENT has never been, nor will it ever be a component of freedom or of free government:

-------------------

TYRANNY