Buckeye Firearms Association
National Precinct Activists
The Ohio Liberty CouncilAlex Jones, who started the WhiteHouse.gov petition to deport Piers for his support in subverting the US Constitution, confronted Morgan on his own CNN show. See the video below for more statistics to back up Alex Jones statements. I have a feeling this is just the tipping point for this issue and the people are going to stand united on this against President Obama, Congress, and those who would intend to restrict our Constitutional rights.
|
||||
|
 
|
The House of Representatives is scheduled to consider two major pieces of legislation on Tuesday, Nov. 15th.
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act: Congressional support is growing for a bill (H.R.822) that would require all states to honor concealed carry firearm permits issued in any state. Under the legislation, citizens with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state could legally carry it into another, in accordance with the restrictions of that state. The House bill would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines. Balanced Budget Amendment: Republicans in the House have introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The measure, which would require two-thirds approval of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, would require that federal spending in any year not exceed total revenue. It would cap federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product and require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress every year.
A state lawmaker in Virginia is proposing that his state adopt a plan that would exempt products made in thestate from the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause to limit, restrict and regulate. The plan by Delegate Mark Cole is House Bill 1438, which the Tenth Amendment Center explains is one – large – step beyond what several states already have done in adopting Firearms Freedom Act provisions. Those plans, which were started in Montana and now have been adopted in seven other states, too, specify that firearms made, sold and kept inside a state’s boundaries are not subject to federal rules because those are supposed to apply to commerce “among the states.” Cole’s plan specifically expands on that idea. His plan states, “All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.”
In a Department of Justice oversight hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) said to Holder, “I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people.” Poe then asked Holder point blank, “Have you read the Arizona law?” Continue reading Attorney General Holder Admits He’s Never Read Arizona’s Immigration Law
Maurice A. Thompson is the Director of the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law. Ironically, Mr. Thompson was an attorney for the Sam Adams Foundation in Chicago – the home state of President Barak Obama. In addition, he has practiced privately in Ohio and Illinois, and clerked for the Ohio judiciary. The 1851 Center recently was part of a lawsuit in which ACORN agreed to give up its Ohio business license and not return under another name, as it has in other states, under a settlement which settles claims brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law againstACORN’s voter registration practices. Continue reading Ohio Pushing to Block Federal Mandate to Purchase Federal Health Care Youtube This is an expose’ of the Census Bureau. This video itemizes the fundamental legal questions that the Census Bureau refuses or fails to answer about its collection and use of personal information from every American (see questions below). This program aired on Matrix News Network (syndicated national television) in January of 2010. Without any apparent authority the Census Bureau has expanded it’s information gathering activities. In addition to the once-in-10-years Census authorized by the Constitution, the Census Bureau conducts more in-depth “Surveys” of 250,000 Americans every month of every year. It has no Constitutional authority for that, in fact the Bureau is violating the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights by suggesting that Americans are “obligated” to provide any personal information whatsoever to government. The Constitution allows the government to count people once every ten years, but does not require any American to BE COUNTED, OR TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL, much less to provide personal information to the temporary worker and stranger who comes to your door with a Census Bureau badge. Americans have been given very false impressions and presumptions of the authority of government to invade their lives. Even the Census takers themselves are sometimes misinformed of the limits of government. Once your information is out there, it is out there for good. There is no such thing as a “secure database” in government. Government data is bought, lost, stolen and viewed every day by everyone from law enforcement to criminals at all levels of society. Spill your life to strangers at your front door or on the “questionnaire” at your own risk. Beyond that is the question, if we agree to pass over our private information to bureaucrats, is there any limit to what they will ask for next? The Census Is Getting Personal My reason for producing this video and for posting it on YouTube is that I see so many people everywhere who don’t seem to understand that the USA has become something very different than the country of our origin, and we have ALREADY lost many of the rights and freedoms that were given to us by nature (God?) and were protected for us again in our Constitution. Our Constitutional framers never imagined the spending, waste, taxation intrusion and aggression that our government now commits without restraint. How did that happen? When our government pushes us we fail to push back so, after many decades of that, government simply sees no boundaries at all on its own presumed force and authority. It is our government. It is our servant. Government can have no authority but that which it derives from us. But government employees, officials and representatives do need to be reminded of that on a regular basis. There is a pdf file of the Census Bureau’s AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY Questionnairre at: QUESTIONS THAT THE CENSUS BUREAU REFUSED OR FAILED TO ANSWER (from Jerry Day’s Matrix News Network segment: “The Census Is Getting Personal”) I strongly suggest asking these questions of your Census Taker, especially if they show up with an “American Community Survey” form: 1) The Constitution authorizes government to count people but it does not authorize the taking of private information or even the names of individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive authority to demand our private information? 2) Is there any limit to the amount and type of private information that the Census bureau may demand and collect? 3) Under what Constitutional authority does the Census Bureau collect information now from 250,000 people per month of every year? 4) The 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits government search and seizure of private information without a court warrant based on probable cause. Current Census policies violate that Amendment do they not? 5) By what Constitutional authority does the Census Bureau threaten penalties for failure to provide personal information? 6) The Census Bureau claims it maintains privacy of personal information. Are there any circumstances under which law enforcement or spy agencies can access Census information? 7) Since presumably Census data may be subpoenaed by law enforcement, may individuals refuse to answer questions according to the fifth Amendment? 9) Virtually every government database has been either lost, hacked or compromised. Would the Census Bureau’s claim of data security not be an outright lie or at best highly improbable? 10) How would the Census Bureau locate, protect and compensate those individuals whose data becomes compromised? The original article was popsted at http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-census-is-getting-personal.html
©2010 by Mark Pitrone and Fulfilling Torah Ministries “Effective upon ratification of this amendment, the 17th Article of Amendment is hereby repealed, and the original wording of Article 1, § 3, paragraph 1 of the Constitution is reinstated. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term or class of any Senator seated before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.” “[Article. XVII.] [Proposed 1912; Ratified 1913; Possibly Unconstitutional (See Article V, Clause 3 of the Constitution)] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”* *reprinted from “The Constitution Society” website, www.constitution.org ======================================================= With the passage of the 17th Amendment, federalism died in the united States. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828 (W1828) standardized American English usage and spelling. It defines ‘federal’ as “pertaining to a league or a contract.” Our federal government was created by a compact of the States and the people in a Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates of the smaller States; Rhode Island, Delaware, Georgia, and the Carolinas; were afraid that the larger, more populous States; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia; would dominate them. For this reason, they would not vote for the Constitution without a way that they could have equal representation with every other state. This problem was addressed by making the Senate the “States’ House” and the House of Representatives the “People’s House”. Our founders, in their wisdom, set up a system of numerous checks and balances to federal power. There were the 3 branches of the federal government, which were each supposed to jealously guard their own power from the others. Another check was that the loser of the presidential election became Vice President, thus making the opposition party leader the decider of Senate ties. Yet another was the several States’ representatives in the Senate to balance the peoples’ representatives in the House. The Senate was to jealously guard the States’ powers. In other words, the founders built gridlock into the system. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the equal representation for each State was done away and Senators became, for all intents and purposes, ‘at large’ representatives of the people who happened to hold 6 year terms. The States had no check on federal power, since the Senate now answered only to the people of their states, not their respective States’ legislatures. That is 180˚ out of phase with the founders’ vision. It is also 180˚ out of phase with the natural order of government. The natural order of government is as follows; God created the people, the people delegated certain powers and created the States, and then the States and the people further delegated specific powers and created the federal Constitution, which created the three branches of the federal government. As the disciple is not greater than his master nor the servant greater than his lord (Matt.10.24); as the clay is not greater than the potter nor is the creature greater than its creator, so the States are not inferior to the federal government, but rather it is superior as the federal government’s creator. And the People are superior to both the State and the federal governments as their creator. Only God is greater than the men he created. The checks and balances were intended to keep the legislative process slow. The Senate, especially, was meant to be the more deliberative, slower acting body. The House responded to the whims of the people, while the Senate responded to the collective opinions of the States’ legislatures. The founders knew that moving quickly on the whims of public opinion would be very bad for the Republic. That was why they installed so many checks and balances – to slow the process. Our federal government moves too quickly in passage of laws, not deliberating on what unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences might ensue. It is this author’s opinion that when the federal government reacts to a ‘crisis’ (and when is it not reacting to crises?), there is an underlying usurpation of power in the works. This also is true of ‘omnibus’ and ‘cobra’ bills, that are so extensive and universal in scope, and any bill that tries to be ‘comprehensive’, like the “Health Care” legislation trying to wind its way through both houses. This is especially true when a bill is hundreds or thousands of pages, but the representatives and the people only have a short time to consider it. Three days is not enough time to properly consider a 2000 page bill. We need to slow down the process in Washington, D.C., as well as in the Statehouses. And that’s why we need to get back to the original Constitution. If this subject was interesting, you may also enjoy reading this site: http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/february-2009-hamiltons-curse/ “Third Amendment” ©11-20-03 Amendment III: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” It is probably hard for the average American of the 21st century to relate to the cause or appreciate the need of the Third Amendment of the “Bill of Rights.” Most might feel that this amendment is simply outdated and unneeded in today’s “advanced” society. It was obviously of prime concern, however, to the Colonists who wrote it since they enumerated their right to be secure in their homes immediately after those of the free dissemination of information and self defense. This amendment was in direct response to two acts perpetrated by George III: first, the quartering act of 1765 which required each colony to materially sustain any British soldiers located within its jurisdiction, and secondly, one of the infamous “intolerable acts,” the quartering act of 1774, which stationed British troops in occupied homes. In fact, the Declaration of Independence stated that “The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations” such as “…quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…” These cases, however, were certainly not the first time that a Monarch of England had violated the hearths and homes of his subjects by defiling them with his troops. In reality, quartering of the king’s troops had been a problem well before French and Indian War during the middle of the 18th century. Carmon Hardy states in his “A Free People’s Intolerable Grievance” found in “The Bill of Rights, A Lively Heritage,” that these abuses had taken place in the American Colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts in the 1670’s and New York in the 1680’s. Quartering was also recorded from the West Indies all the way to Nova Scotia during the end of the same century. In fact, just as the First Amendment can trace its origins at least back to England and the bonfires of “Bloody Mary,” the necessity for the Third Amendment can easily be traced back hundreds of years earlier to Great Britain. During the Restoration of the Roman Catholic absolutist Charles II, a quartering act was passed in 1663 against Scottish Covenanters who had signed the “National Covenant of 1638” and the Solemn “League and Covenant of 1643” promising to uphold the Reformed Faith in the name of Christ. Charles had Royal Highland troops stationed in “ousted” Lowland ministers’ (those not following the new state-mandated religious practices) home to insure that they not preach their Reformed message in homes or in open-air “conventicles” in some remote Scottish moor. The Scots-Irish Presbyterian Preachers who were shouting “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!” had progenitors who had covenanted themselves together in Scotland against Papist kings and their intolerant, absolutist dictates. Many of these Reformed ministers-those who had not been hanged, drowned, or incinerated for preaching in open air Protestant services-had had Loyalist Highland troops quartered in their modest homes or about their shires. Edwin Moore relates a story from James Nisbet’s “The Private Life of the Persecuted” an ironic example of what it was like to have troops present about them in their town: “In the year 1678…there was a great host of Highlanders came down in the middle of the winter to the western shires of Scotland…where they pillaged, plundered, thieved, and robbed night and day; even the Lord’s day they regarded as little as any other…[T]wenty of them came to the house; but [my father] not being at home, they told they were come to take the whig and his arms. They plundered his house, as they did the house of every other man who would not conform to the then laws; and such was their thievish disposition, and so well acquaint were they with the second-sight, that let people hide their goods…yet [they] would go as right to where is was hid…dig it up, and away with it, rejoicing as though it had been their own. From this I remark-that though four of us children were so cowed and terrified with their mighty searches, unruliness, and barbarous inhumanity, that we choosed [sic] for two months time to lie all night in the open fields to shun them; yet it pleased the Lord of his great mercy not one of us contracted any hurtful cold…though it was the depth of winter. Though when they left that country, they drove away many black cattle and sheep, as also many good horses, with household furniture and provisions…sparing neither conformist nor nonconformist; and yet before a twelvemonth was over, they were much poorer than when they came to the west country; for I saw some of them come begging the next year, and heard them often say in their broken English, ‘you Lowland folk are better than our folk, for God hath cursed us and all that we had, because we took your gear from you.’ Upon which I cannot but observe what is written: Ps ix:16 “God is known by the judgments which he executes.” So it should be no surprise that the grandsons of these Covenanters would become the very men that were most vocal against the new king’s affront to freedom. In fact these Ulster Scot Presbyterians of the Middle and Southern Colonies, along with the Puritans separatists of New England, was the group of “rebels” most responsible for initiation and the triumph of the resulting civil war of 1776. The Tory Joseph Galloway stated in writing that the Revolution was primarily a religious clash caused by Congregationalists and Presbyterians; a German mercenary in America wrote home that the “American Rebellion [was] nothing more or less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion.” and Britain’s prime minister announced after the war that “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” The historian George Bancroft remarked that “the revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the Presbyterians of Ulster.” In fact George Washington was so impressed with the ideals and determination of these men that he declared “If defeated everywhere else, I will make my last stand for liberty among the Scotch-Irish…” No, it was no accident that over a fifth of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and members of the Constitutional Convention were Scots-Irish. They and their ancestors had endured imprisonment, exile, and execution, Test Acts, Corporation Acts, and Quartering Acts. And as a result of hundreds of years of abuse, they would insist that their new government’s constitution enumerate specific limits on that government so that these violations and indignities should never happen again. But could these types of abuses ever happen again in our country? Most Americans today would find it unthinkable that Unites States military personnel would ever be quartered in their homes. In fact, until the events in Waco (and maybe even after), most Americans thought that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent troops from ever even being used against American citizens, much less quartered in their homes. Certainly technology has most likely rendered the actual quartering of troops to an anachronism. But what are the actual tribulations with the quartering of soldiers? Certainly privacy and inconvenience are obvious; and the financial ramifications must also be considered. Today, thanks to the mature field of semiconductor physics, privacy can be taken from a person in their “castle” without a human being ever crossing their threshold. In fact, putting “warm bodies” in a home today is simply impractical when electronic devices are so much more efficient and effective. And if actual humans are needed, 21st century technology allows for their introduction from miles away within minutes of an “anonymous tip.” Furthermore, leaders today don’t need to offset the cost of their armies by requiring the occupied to support the occupiers; the occupied today pay exorbitant taxes in order to support their standing armies. Perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn from the Third Amendment is just how nefarious a totalitarian state can be as it struggles to control its “human resources.” Quartering Acts proclamations may be purely an English innovation of Stewart and Hanoverian Kings, but megalomaniacs such as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein have all employed the tactic of “house arrest” through military occupation of its citizenry’s dwellings. And maybe the question is not whether American citizens must fear a resurgence of Quartering Acts or not, but whether or not the laws and practices today are just as despicable. **************** The Quartering Act British Parliament – 1774 An act for the better providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in his Majesty’s service in North America. WHEREAS doubts have been entertained, whether troops can be quartered otherwise than in barracks, in case barracks have been provided sufficient for the quartering of all officers and soldiers within any town, township, city, district, or place, within his Majesty’s dominions in North America: And whereas it may frequently happen, from the situation of such barracks, that, if troops should be quartered therein, they would not be stationed where their presence may be necessary and required: be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That, in such cases, it shall and may be lawful for the persons who now are, or may be hereafter, authorised be law, in any of the provinces within his Majesty’s dominions in North America, and they are hereby respectively authorised, impowered, and directed, on the requisition of the officer who, for the time being, has the command of his Majesty’s forces in North America, to cause any officers or soldiers in his Majesty’s service to be quartered and billetted in such manner as is now directed by law, where no barracks are provided by the colonies. II. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if it shall happen at any time that any officers or soldiers in his Majesty’s service shall remain within any of the said colonies without quarters, for the space of twenty-four hours after such quarters shall have been demanded, it shall and may be lawful for the governor of the province to order and direct such and so many uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings, as he shall think necessary to be taken, (making a reasonable allowance for the same), and make fit for the reception of such officers and soldiers, and to put and quarter such officers and soldiers therein, for such time as he shall think proper. III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That this act, and every thing herein contained, shall continue and be in force, in all his Majesty’s dominions in North America, until the twenty-fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six. In recent years and months there have been many examples of the homes of citizens being “taken over” by one government agency or another. The stories found in the following links will demonstrate this ill treatment of the Third Amendment and the People it was written to protect. 1. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/071902/sta_drugbust.shtml 2. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012704/posts 3. http://www.saveourguns.com/elian007.htm 4. http://www.newhumanist.com/stormtroopers.html 5. http://educationalfreedom.com/pages/cases/patricia_odell/odell_history2.html (This editorial is copyrighted under the purview of “Liberty-Rising” and the author. The material in this article may Not be reproduced or re-printed, as a whole or in part, without the express, written permission of “Liberty-Rising” and\or the author.) Dr. Reid is Visiting Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Clemson University. This article is used by permission. http://www.clemson.edu/ces/departments/ece/faculty_staff/faculty/wreid.html
|
 |
||
|
Copyright © 2013 The Ohio Free Press - All Rights Reserved - Posts Feed |
||||
Why has the Census Bureau decided to collect GPS coordinates for every home?
Cartoon From 1948 Has It Right – How Could We Not See It?
Ohio Going Obama? Better Look Again…
How the States Lost Their Voice in Washington
The Constitution divided power between two separate but co-equal governing bodies: the states and the national government. This division is called federalism and is so important that the sovereignty of We the People cannot be preserved without it. It is the concept that in most things the states are not subordinate to the national government but in fact immune to it. DC was to handle mostly foreign concerns, and the states were to handle internal concerns.
The states never surrendered any power that they felt they could manage and any new powers subsequently given required three-fourths of the states’ permission, per Article V of the Constitution.The Constitution then divided the power left at the national level into three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each a check on each other to prevent consolidation of power into one body. Collectively they were the national component while the states were the federal component hence the shared and equal concept known as federalism.
Think of this relationship as a marriage, neither the servant of the other and each with different duties. How would one know who had the power and when? Article I, Sec. 8 listed the powers of the national government and Amendment 10 noted that all other powers are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Who would keep the Feds in their place, considering the natural tendency of governing bodies to expand their power? The clarity of the Constitution enabled the states to protect the interests of their people by refusing to comply when their ’spouse’ overstepped enumerated boundaries. But one other step was critical: the creation of a bicameral legislature, one representing the people (the House of Representatives), the other the states (the Senate).
The Senate was not created to represent us as individuals. Why would the founders create two legislative bodies for the same function? The US Senate was intended to serve the interest of each state, allowing the people of a state to be represented as a unified body. All law was to be reviewed from both perspectives and only signed by the president after both were satisfied. James Madison explained, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states.”
Today the states have no voice in the making of law, resulting in the death of federalism and our freedom proportionally. Today a U.S. Senator can appeal to solely popular perspectives and know nothing of the state legislature’s concerns of an overpowering national government. For example, the national government has no constitutional jurisdiction over water use, or environmental issues within a state. Part of California’s recourse in the Delta Smelt situation should have included a Senator from the Golden State arguing such in Washington D.C. Without this voice, the National government moves into State areas of power pretty much at will and no other government entity is powerful enough to stop them.
The 17th Amendment undid the benefits of a bicameral legislature by mandating that the people rather than the state legislatures select U.S. Senators. The result, whether intended or not, did great damage to federalism and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. One way to get the Tenth Amendment off life support is to rescind the 17thAmendment. Although it may have enhanced democracy it also removed from the states their voice in the U.S. Senate and hence the ever-increasing growth of government at liberty’s expense.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
This story is found here: http://california.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/how-the-states-lost-their-voice-in-washington/