Death of our Constitutional Rights
Click to read the United States Constitution
There is an ongoing war against freedom in America.
When the ladies and gentlemen of the press report on a "newsworthy" courtroom event, the blabber about our "precious constitutional rights" is ceaseless. The minute the cameras turn their heads, however, the ongoing war against freedom continues.
Freedom of religion: The original purpose of this part of the 1st Amendment was to protect the free practice of Christianity, or any other non-Satanic religion. The fear was that the government would "establish" a particular state religion and persecute all others.
Now, however, the government is using the 1st Amendment to stamp out Christianity, which is diametrically opposite to the original intention of the Amendment. You don't believe it? Look up the American Center for Law and Justice in Washington, D.C. These dedicated attorneys spend 100% of their time fighting to protect the Judeo-Christian way of life against an onslaught of government persecution.
What do we mean by "persecution"? If a public school allows Hindu activities in the school, but denies Christian activities on the grounds of "separation of church and state", that's persecution.
When a group of Christian tourists in the Capitol Building stands in front of a huge painting of the Founding Fathers in prayer, and pauses to say a brief prayer themselves, and are threatened with arrest by a federal "law enforcement" agent who accuses them of the "crime" of practicing religion on government ground, that's persecution. The list of such cases is frighteningly large.
Freedom of speech: The press is not formally censored by the government, but the same bankers who have almost literally "bought" the government have also bought the press. And that's literal. Do you doubt that anyone could "buy the press"? Consider this: The National Debt is somewhere between $5-$15 trillion dollars. That's about how much money the Federal Reserve Bank has "made" doing "business" with America. Now, a major metropolitan daily paper costs around $100-$200 million dollars. So, for 1 billion dollars you can buy 5 big newspapers, or 10 smaller ones. For $1 trillion dollars you can buy 10,000 newspapers. That's 200 newspapers in every state of the Union! Do you really doubt that the bankers have enough money to buy the media?
And isn't it worth spending $1 trillion to protect and defend a $5-$15 trillion dollar investment?
What it all means is that you can get any ball score in your daily paper. Any ball score, without limit. But if you want news, all you'll get is the news which accrues to the benefit of the owners of the newspaper. I've never seen a story about the Federal Reserve Bank in any newspaper, magazine, or TV show which wasn't fundamentally dishonest or deceptive.
Of course, the purchase of a newspaper by a bank is legal. That is, it's presumably legal. I didn't say that the ownership of newspapers by bankers was a crime. But it totally destroys your "freedom of the press" without formal censorship.
Freedom of Assembly: The government still allows you to assemble, because they know that not much happens after such meetings. Nevertheless, they'll make you apply for a "permit", and if your meeting is really offensive to them, you won't get the permit.
Right to petition the government for redress of grievances: You can bring a grievance to court, but if it's a federal matter, and if it interferes with the current drive toward bank dictatorship, there's a 100% probability that the case will be dismissed. Click here for two examples from my own personal experience. Believe me, there are hundreds or even thousands of others just like these.
The Founding Fathers of this nation knew, with great certainty, that in the final analysis, only the right to bear arms would prevent this nation from becoming a dictatorship.
The Constitution gives you the unlimited right to bear arms, and every judge who has ever imprisoned anyone for carrying a gun is a traitor. If this nation wants guns abolished, there's the legal route of Amendment to the Constitution. "Gun control" laws are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional.
Have you ever seen the bumper sticker which reads "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"? What's so complicated about this saying? If a man is willing to murder you, then he's a criminal, and he's willing to break the law. Is there a state in the United States in which it's not a crime to murder you?
If a man is willing to disobey the laws against murder, and if he's willing to kill you, then HOW, pray tell me HOW is a law against guns going to stop him? HE DOESN'T OBEY THE LAW, REMEMBER?!
What gun control laws do is to disarm the innocent and the law-abiding. That means YOU. Now, why would the government want to disarm you? Think about it!
Hitler, Stalin, and every other dictator began their careers with gun control. The current federal gun control laws were allegedly written by Senator Dodd of Connecticut. Actually, Dodd retrieved Hitler's Nuremberg gun control laws from the Library of Congress, had them translated into English, and copied them for America. Are you still in favor of gun control?
The government has some responsibility to control crime. Lawlessness can't be totally eliminated, but it can be minimized. But this government promotes crime. Click here to see the Web Sites of some patriots who have accumulated information on crimes so large, and so plentiful, that you'll hardly know what to think after you read about them.
4th and 5th Amendments
I. IRS property theft
Both the 4th and 5th Amendments contain protections against seizure of property without "due process of law". These protections are "out the window".
In the 1960s the IRS began stealing peoples homes. I hate to use a word like "steal", but it's the correct word. The Congress of the United States never passed a law empowering them to do this.
Here's how they got around the law: Volume 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations contained punishments for people who sold alcohol, tobacco or firearms, and who failed to pay federal taxes on these sales. These punishments included seizure of property. The seizures were legal, and they were constitutional.
But the IRS knew that there was "much more money" in personal income tax than in alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They wanted your house.
So the government printers were instructed to move the punishments from Volume 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (entitled "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms") to Volume 26 (entitled "Personal Income Tax"). This makes it look like it's "legal" for the IRS to steal your house, if, in their sole opinion, you "owe them money". Is this fraud or what?!
Thus, by virtue of a cheap printer's trick, the government now seizes the homes of American citizens under "color of law", even though Congress never passed any such law!
Of course, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tax "offenders" also have their homes seized, even though the regulations have been moved out of "their" book. The precedent was so well-established, that the IRS just kept doing it.
Almost all Americans who have lost their homes, cars, or bank accounts to the IRS because of "taxes due" were robbed. It's as simple as that. Whether the country "needs the money" is irrelevant. If financial need was an excuse for theft, then there would be no such thing as shoplifting. It would be a form of "charity".
II. EPA property theft
When the federal government sees a piece of land it likes, especially large tracts of farmland, it tries to expropriate it on an "environmental" pretext. Typically, some EPA investigator will claim that an "endangered species" lives there, and the farmer therefore must give up his land.
Sounds unbelievable, no? And yet I know, and have talked at length with a Wyoming lawyer whose law firm specializes in protection of farmers against the EPA. And there's more than one such firm!
But don't worry. The snails are doing just fine, thank you.
The 5th Amendment says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. What's the purpose of this? In merry old England, if the King didn't like you, he'd accuse you of a crime. Thanks to the Magna Carta, you had to be convicted in court. What it the King lost his case? No problem! He'd just try you again! And again, and again, and again...until some dumb jury convicted you. In the end, the King would have lost every case except the last one. The outcome? You went to jail!
The prevention of this sort of abuse of executive power is purpose of our 5th Amendment.
So what have we, in our great and glorious wisdom, done to this all-important protection against government tyranny? We've scuttled it! Good going, America.
Remember O.J. Simpson? Of course you do. He's America's favorite defendant.
O.J. was tried twice for the same crime. In the first trial, for murder, he was acquitted by a predominantly "black" jury. "White" America was outraged! Whitey wanted blood.
So when the federal government, wise in the extreme in such matters, got wind of "white" America's blood lust, they fed America a blood meal. O.J. was dragged back into court and re-tried for the same crime! Oh, of course, the title of the case was changed. Now it was a "civil" trial. He was being tried NOT because he murdered his wife, but because in doing so, he had DEPRIVED HER OF HER CIVIL RIGHTS!
This time the jury was "white". He was convicted. Surprise, surprise.
I've always imagined that O.J. was guilty. But do I really know that? No, not really. Is it a terrible thing that a murderer walks free because of the racial prejudice of the jury? Yes, it is. But now, O wise America, you have killed the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy. Now, if the government really wants you in jail, they'll damned-well get you there.
How many ways can a case be re-labeled? Hmmm, let's see. First they can accuse you of "murder". If that doesn't work, they can say that you deprived the victim of his "civil rights". If that doesn't work, they can say you deprived the victim of the right to work at the profession of his choosing. There's no end to this nonsense.
How does our government justify this transgression against its own Constitution? They quote the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which says, "No person shall...be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." At OJ's second trial, i.e., the civil trial, he was not put at jeopardy of "life or limb", was he?
We'd better not answer this too hastily. What does "life or limb" mean? "Life" is simple enough -- if you lose the trial, you're executed, and you become dead. But what's "limb"?
I'll bet you've never thought about it. I want you to think about it now. Let's start with the literal interpretation of "loss of limb": This means that a court of law orders that your arm or leg off be cut off. Have you ever heard of that happening in America?
Have you ever heard of that happening in England? Even in "Merry Old England" before the American Revolution?
I haven't. So the question still remains: What's "limb"?Clearly, the term arises from the origin of all Western Law, the Bible. In two different places in the Torah, Moses, in the name of the LORD, instructs the children of Israel in the famous doctrine "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb...". Ignorant atheists among us never tire of proclaiming that this is a "barbaric" code of law, compared to our own "humane" law, where damages are compensated by monetary payments. Aren't we "advanced" now?
Maybe not. The Rabbis inform us that in the entire history of Israel, from the days of Moses right on down to the present time, there has never been a case of amputation of limb, or any other mutilation, in punishment for physical harm to another person. The damages were always monetary! That is, the phrase "limb for limb" always meant monetary damages commensurate with the magnitude of the injury.
Do you understand what this means? It means that in a trial whose worse outcome is monetary damages, the defendant is being placed at jeopardy of "limb". In the entire history of Western Law there has never been any other definition of the word "limb". And the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution says that you cannot be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
Now that we know what "limb" really means, we can clearly see that OJ was indeed put under double jeopardy. In the first trial, he was at jeopardy of both "life and limb", and in the second he was again put at jeopardy of "limb", i.e., monetary damages.
If I, a non-attorney, can see this, then how much more so the evil-doers who are perpetrating this legal onslaught against your constitutional rights? Sure, if a murderer "walks" because the justice system was too lienient, that's terrible. But how can that compare with the terribleness of a policy which destroys all freedom; a policy which subjects you to the far more horrendous risk of being reduced to the status of a serf in a world-wide feudal manor?
6th and 10th Amendment
The 6th Amendment is called the "supremacy clause". It reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United states, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
You can forget about this. The law libraries of America are filled with books; millions of books containing billions of words. Nobody has the foggiest idea what most of the books say. The federal law books are absolutely packed with pseudo-laws which are so grossly unconstitutional as to not even warrant consideration. Nobody cares. But people will care -- later, when it's too late.
The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You can forget about this also. The federal government has, in no uncertain terms, set itself up as a dictator over you. It does whatever it wants, and there's nothing you can do about it. Except, that is, to get on the Ark of Salvation, which will destroy this and any other money-based dictatorship with great force -- a force whose power will surprise you.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN----OR--