Subtle Statecraft Part One: Michael Shaw and Freedom Advocates

Subtle Statecraft Part One: Michael Shaw and Freedom Advocates

Michael Shaw, Founder of Freedom Advocates, Constitutional Patriot

When we go to the Freedom Advocates website we can find on the front page an article on “unalienable rights”, in which Michael Shaw explains the difference between “I”nalienable and “U”nalienable. That page is well worth the read for anyone. Link.

There we read:

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.” The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

“This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights…”

(end quoted passages from Freedom Advocates)

Oath Keepers suggests all readers go to that page and read the next passage which follows the one above.

Michael Shaw Freedom Advocates

Michael Shaw is a primary pioneer in exposing Agenda 21

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

Oath Keepers would like to offer our readers the most solid revelation of current global forces which are shaping everything from the Presidential campaign circus to the intensifying pressures of a United Nations sponsored and sanctioned global banking system upon our American economy, and to other factors which cause many to sense that something is amiss in America.

To do this we shall initiate a series of articles as a sort of collection of pieces to be used to create a common sense perception of the nature of the problem. We shall name the series “Subtle Statecraft”.  The following video of Michael Shaw addressing the Eagle Forum of California Conference in 2012 consists of completely documented and referenced facts. This series will have several presentations by Michael Shaw.

The series will also contain works by Thomas Woods, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Patrick Wood, G.Edward Griffin, Publius Huldah, Ron Paul, and others. Oath Keepers recommends collecting this series as each article is published. They will prove to be a valuable resource for each reader — a resource which will fortify a perception of not only the Constitution and other founding documents, but also the culture, moral system, and societal values of the founders’ day and time, when wise men could readily see the truth of every human being born with inherent “unalienable rights” which are not subject to any man-made government and which live indelibly within each human born on earth.

That truth, once seen and fully understood, shall guide We The People to reclaiming our individual dignity as created beings, and that recognition shall empower our long-lost proper ownership of offices of governance at all levels.

To begin the series, here is Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates:

About Author

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Comments

  1. Cal 23 April, 2016, 14:49

    Okay,

    First thing is to not panic BECAUSE we have the US Constitution and IT is the contract that ALL who serve within our governments – state and general (federal) – are REQUIRED to take an Oath to “SUPPORT AND DEFEND”, and that Oath continues for life unless they renounce it.

    As THE first and foremost important contract to those that serve within our governments, it also DEFINES our government, separates and assigns the delegated authority to the DIFFERENT BRANCHES AND to SOME SPECIFICALLY NAMED OFFICES WITHIN THOSE BRANCHES. (Caps are mine for emphasis.)

    Notice that all authority is delegated to branches or offices within the branches NOT to any person, whatever the position, who serves within our governments. Those people who do serve within our governments – elected, hired, contracted, etc – are ALL, every position, required to take an Oath and to KEEP that Oath or they are committing a crime (or two) and no longer meet the requirements of the position they occupy.

    It is in writing what duties they are required to do, some who serve within our governments are only under the US Constitution – the supreme law and supreme contract of this land for ALL governmental employees – and some are under BOTH the US Constitution and a state’s Constitution. All American Constitutions are in writing for easy reference for all.

    The US Constitution IS the supreme LAW of our nation, and it matters not how many traitors serve, it is STILL the supreme LAW of our nation that ALL laws/codes/regulations/etc MUST follow in order to have any type of lawful authority over the American people.

    So where am I going with this? Agenda 21, Election Fraud, Gun Control, “areas defined as “non – constitutional areas” within the USA, giving another branch or letting another branch of our government use authority NOT ASSIGNED to that branch, letting foreign nations/entities/etc have authority over our military, taking the constitutionally guaranteed state sovereignty away from states, blending the unlawful and unconstitutional law enforcement agencies and state law enforcement agencies, etc are ALL TREASON and *Terrorism here in our nation under our legitimate government.

    That when those who serve within our governments use authority NOT delegated or authority that is NOT assigned to that office or branch they occupy that is *TREASON and **Terrorism against the American people and, it means that those people who “serve within our governments” no longer have any lawful authority for their actions, and any who are armed, uniformed or not, that enforce their unlawful “stuff”, etc are all TREASONOUS and Terrorist in their actions HERE in America.

    Those actions means they NO LONGER REPRESENT OUR GOVERNMENTS, the people because those things are in writing and they are sworn to them. That is the object of the Oaths, they make the people who are REQUIRED to take and KEEP them PERSONALLY responsible for their actions while serving. Those that serve, and those that do not, all have easy availability to know if what they are being ordered to do, or are about to do is lawful/constitutional or not. Here, there is NO EXCUSE.

    The only people who serve within our governments – state and general – that are doing the duties as constitutionally assigned are the only people with any lawful authority and that are really our government.

    Again, what does that mean? That we must hold our own elections and replace everyone who serves that did not do as is required of them at all levels. That is must be done in a constitutional manner, which means that we must charge them with the crimes they are believed to have committed and them they can be arrested if it is so warranted, and they get a jury trial.

    Who does the arresting? The ONE constitutionally assigned body to do those things, the Militia of the people.

    Oh, and here in America under the US Constitution there IS NO SUCH THING AS EMERGENCY POWERS OR MARTIAL LAW.

    *Those are all Treason because the threat of force is always there, and they are working from within to destroy our nations legitimate government.

    **28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

    Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

    John Adams, from A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765): “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

    Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.“

    The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 to:
    — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The duties those that serve within our governments have assigned to them regarding the militias are found in Clause 16.

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    An editorial on Gage’s proclamation stressed that an armed populace must keep government in check: “The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to the king…. They are rebels who arm against the constitution, not they who defend it by arms.” “A Freeman,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2]

    South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate: ““When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.” (borrowed from Oathkeepers)

    The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” — The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

    “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.” Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934)

    “[Unalienable rights] are enumerated rights that individuals, acting in their own behalf, cannot disregard or destroy.” McCullough v. Brown, 19 S. E. 458, 480, 23 L.R.A. 410.

    “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

    “Traveling is passing from place to place — act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

    ORGANIC LAW. The fundamental law, or constitution of a system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government. St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 46 S. W. 976, 42 L. R. A. 686, 68 Am. St. Rep. 575. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition (1968), West Publishing Co., p. 1251.

    “The authority of the organic law is universally acknowledged; it speaks the sovereign will of the people; its injunction regarding the process of legislation is as authoritative as are those touching the substance of it.” Suth. Stat. Const., p. 44, note 1.

    “The constitution of a state is the fundamental law of the State.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199.

    “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

    “Constitutional provisions and amendments to the Constitution relate to the fundamental law and certain fixed principles upon which governments are founded. Constitutions are commonly called the organic law of a State.” State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S. W. 689.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

    They do not have any lawful power beyond that delegated. It is only Treason being enacted over decades so that the people would not recognize it for what it is, and so that law enforcement agencies could be changed enough to do their bidding in the destruction of our nation, MOST unknowingly – but unknowingly because they never bothered to read the supreme LAW of our land, a short document.

    “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 243.

    Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law, 3rd. ed. (1898), pp. 386-387. (Little & Brown Co.).: “In the construction of these instruments the following rules are actually observed:
    1. The practical construction must be uniform. A constitution does not mean one thing at one time and another at some subsequent time.
    2. The object of construction is to give effect to the intent of the people in establishing the Constitution; it is the intent of the law giver that is to be enforced. But the intent is to be found in the instrument itself. . .”

    “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

    “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

    “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.”
    It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it.

    Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction. …” (end Dr. Vieira quote)

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 23 April, 2016, 16:17

      Cal, you are a blessing to many readers here, including to me as an individual. Thank you muchly for taking time to compose this extraordinary response to the above article.
      I am going to let Michael Shaw know about your comment here. I also would like to post this as a stand-alone article in other places on the Net.
      Thank you,
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 23 April, 2016, 19:52

        Thanks Elias, not sure that “blessing” is the correct word, but thank you anyway!

        You, and others at Oathkeepers, are welcome to use anything I write in whatever manner you believe will assist in helping people to understand our legitimate government and our own responsibilities to it.

        I am sorry my comments are mostly long, but a lot of people really do not understand our government, too much propaganda and lies are spread over and over again everywhere. It is easier to provide the proof so that it can be accessed if they want to, or they can skip over it.

        When we get our nation back as it should be, a lot of people will be surprised at what freedom really is.

        God bless!

        Cal
        If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

        Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

        Reply this comment
        • Elias Alias Author 23 April, 2016, 23:44

          Thank you Cal.

          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

          Reply this comment
          • Nick 24 April, 2016, 11:28

            As a former market analyst, I tend to be more contrary than most would ever consider. Allow me that fault, if you will, while I watch my country torn to shreds.

            Several years back I was asked to give an opinion on the DOW. I gave a date for which the market would make a top, and then move lower. I did so three months in advance of the forecast date. I was told that everyone thought I was wrong. The day came the market topped and then moved lower. It wasn’t my first analysis, nor has it been my last when all others noted I was wrong, but eventually I was proven to be correct.

            I point this out because as we wax philosophically about who said this, or how to do that, the enemies of the People move as an undaunted juggernaut slowly but surely removing one right after another. I picture that day in my dotage when my grandchildren will ask me how this could have happened. Even more frightening comes the time when I try to explain to them how this was never supposed to be.

            There are obviously well read, and intelligent people who read and comment on these articles. However, throughout the so-called pro-Second, and patriot community there seems to be an unwillingness to accept reality; there are conspiracies, this nation was never intended to be a democracy, and it is the People who are sovereign with the authority “to alter or to abolish” this government. With that sovereignty comes the recognized power “to execute the Laws of the Union”, not as that, which we believe to be most convenient, but rather as codified by the state statutes that the Founders depended upon as “The Sword and Sovereignty” of the People.

            Since Dr. Vieira was quoted here, one should know of his extensive work in attempting to revitalize the Militia, a force that was not meant in any way to be voluntary, and if Hamilton did make such a statement he was completely outside the law in this area.

            However, I don’t believe Hamilton either wrote, or said that the militia was voluntary, but the fact that it is widely accepted speaks volumes of what direction we are headed. The pro-Second community avoids the first thirteen words of the amendment as if they symbolize some horrific plague. It indicates to me that the propaganda has succeeded in destroying the one branch that the People should hold securely in their hands, but more insidiously is the fact that those who claim to be our ally are nothing more than scam artists who use their positions to call for “money bombs”, memberships, and contributions so that they can live a life-style that they otherwise could not attain. I speak in good part to those in the truth movement, the NRA, and affiliate groups who keep their membership ignorant on this essential aspect of our rule of law.

            As an Oath Keeper, that is to say that I’ve petitioned my home state of NJ under Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia; “such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.” I asked as a veteran who was once again willing to take the time and make the sacrifice. I’ve asked others in the so-called pro-gun community to join me only to receive a resounding shut up and get out of here.

            So as we pretend that the NRA is pro-Second, and the truth movement actually knows what it speaks of, we waste precious time that could be consolidated and pressed into the service of revitalizing the good People into the proper form of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”.

            It’s a matter of being contrary in the face of all others.

      • Lee 24 April, 2016, 05:23

        Thank you so much Cal! We all needed this refresher. Our Constitution, to work, needs good and Constitutionally savy men and women to pass to all the beauty of our most important document, and they in turn pass to others the legacy of our Founding Fathers. Our blessing from these Angels and God are what is so necessary to be our staple, our rock, to keep the faith, that once again, we shall prevail. God Bless you Sir, and thank you again.

        Reply this comment
      • Ivan Berry 24 April, 2016, 18:48

        To both Cal and Alias: Not to put too much emphasis on it, but in my copy of the Federalist Papers, number 28 makes no reference to the militia being voluntary. My source is a Mentor addition first published in 1961.
        If you double check and find my copy in error, please respond at any later date on any article submission. Thank you, and good service guys. You are much appreciated.

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 25 April, 2016, 15:49

          It is voluntary in that one is not paid until and unless one is called up by the state or general (federal) government to enforcement of the things constitutionally – US Constitution and state – assigned for the Militias to be used.

          It IS mandatory that all people train in both the ways the US military is/is to be trained and in the US Constitution and their state Constitution so that they understand what ALL laws/treaties/regulations/codes/etc must meet to be lawful and binding; and what those who serve are allowed to do, forbidden to do, and can do ONLY under specific circumstances.

          So to be entirely correct the Militias are both.

          Reply this comment
          • Ivan Berry 25 April, 2016, 16:55

            Cal, I was only referencing your attribution to Hamilton and Federalist 28 in which you indicated Hamilton said that the militia was a voluntary force. Check your references. I did not say that Hamilton had not said it, just not in Federalist 28.

      • Prepper 25 April, 2016, 07:52

        This has been the globalist banks design for at least 100 years. What’s really sad is this isn’t being pointed out by any of the people running for local office. I first came to knowledge of this from a Kirk MacKenzie (Defending Rural America) seminar held in Modesto back in 2012 I think. I made a video of his next seminar that was held in Sonora. I set up a Facebook group for my county. Many of the members held a meeting to discuss it and what can be done to stop it’s advance.
        All told, the most knowledgeable folks in the group all work full time jobs and most folks who learn about it are scared to talk about it out of fear that the cia, fbi, dhs, fema or some other group will knock their door down or send the irs to come after them.

        Reply this comment
    • Cal 24 April, 2016, 10:06

      Sorry all, left out some important words in this section of my “main” comment here, “taking the constitutionally guaranteed state sovereignty away from states”, that should read “taking the constitutionally guaranteed state sovereignty that was retained by the states unlawfully away from states”. That power was never delegated to those that serve within the general government.

      The meaning is very different and very clear that we have a federal government with the states dealing with the domestic items and it is in writing that the general (federal) government was delegated to be the central point FOR the states in dealing with foreign affairs.

      Some relatively recent comments regarding state sovereignty;

      Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

      Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

      It is really important to understand that the 1783 Treaty of Paris (ending our war with Great Britain) held that each state was a sovereign nation. That is why each state feared giving up SOME, NOT ALL of its sovereignty, just the authority to deal with foreign nations on the states behalf so that instead of 13 – 50 different treaties there would be one for America and that is why there are state representatives sent to the general government – to REPRESENT the wants and needs of the people of that state. Not one state gave up all its rights to the central government, as it was created to be a “creature:” of the states, the people of each state. That is in writing, but additionally the Anti-federalists wanted some way to guarantee that states would remain sovereign and that the power of the federal government would be LIMITED in nature and action. That it would be recognized as a creation of, an agent of, and the servant of the states, reflecting the will of the people of that state the “representative was from. The only way some of the states would give their votes to ratify could only be obtained if the Constitution contained a bill of rights PROTECTING and making clear and in writing the rights of the people and their states.

      This was done, and see how long it took the corrupt and the treasonous, the foreign enemies of our nation to get us this close to destruction, and they have been working to do so since the US Constitution was conceived.

      Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its 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 (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

      James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its 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 (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

      St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

      Rawl: “the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people [quoting the 10th Amendment]. What we are about to consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived.” “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.”

      President Andrew Jackson, farewell address: “It is well known that there have always been those among us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government, and experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this government to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created, and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming anything beyond them. Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers or supposed advantages or temporary circumstances shall ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the general government will before long absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have in effect but one consolidated government. From the extent of our country, its diversified interests, different pursuits and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the states and to confine the action of the general government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.”

      God Bless All!
      Cal

      Reply this comment
  2. Muley 24 April, 2016, 03:33

    Great stuff! Both the article, & the comments. We need to have a thorough understanding of our system, as it should be, & our system (corporate), as it is.

    I’d recommed all members & readers to keep track of KrisAnne Hall’s works. http://www.krisannehall.com

    I’d run her for president, if the system wasn’t so corrupted as to make it impossible.

    We ain’t gonna vote our way outa this, I fear . . .

    Muley

    Reply this comment
  3. Walter davis 24 April, 2016, 06:51

    The current state of government controls and regulations have gone far beyond the Constitution, and it has been decades in the making. From county sheriffs who feel their only duty is to transport prisoners and post foreclosure notices( and are happy to leave it at that) tomatoes and town councils who hire an administrator to deal with what they are elected to do. Up to and including officials in Washington who chose not to make a decision that won’t be a vote getter back home.

    The problem this country is having is leaders handing away their powers at all levels to ANYONE who will do the work for them and the result is ambitious people with UN American agendas running everything.

    It we the people who don’t care to know who we are following into the rabbit hole. How many grass roots groups popped up and we’re immediately subverted? My guess is most! Because it is easier to follow than to lead, be educated, speak out, and stand up to ridicule.

    Now years too late. We look back on long dead and forgotten men and the words they spoke and cry foul on what we have now. As a nation , our long inaction and self indulgences are all we have to blame.

    The fact that the president said ” I have a phone and a pen” and he would pass laws by himself, and wasn’t arrested is proof of my argument.

    Mark Levin wrote a book on a theory called ” the liberty amendments”. It is a way through a convention of States to rein in the federal government. There are petitions going around that need to be signed and when enough signatures are a collected a convention can be held. At the convention overreact of the federal government can be curtailed or eliminated. Limits can be set and States rights informed. That includes all non constitutional behavior domestic and international.

    It will take we the people( who still care) to get involved and not let false leaders and prophets lead it astray.

    I suggest that it may be the best way forward.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 25 April, 2016, 16:43

      “Mark Levin wrote a book on a theory called ” the liberty amendments”. It is a way through a convention of States to rein in the federal government.”

      First, the states have always – and still do have – the power to reign in the general (federal) government since the states (through our state representatives of the time) created it, and gave it LIMITED powers that ARE in writing, and that authority deals with mostly foreign affairs for all of the states. It IS the central agency for the states in dealing with foreign nations.

      Modern voices on that subject such as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

      Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

      U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

      Historic voices such as James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

      And in Federalist 14 he said: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

      James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

      St George Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…” “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?”

      Second, the states can PETITION the congress to hold a convention, not the states hold the convention – yes it is the state reps sent to the general government to represent the people of the state that are already there, but they are the same corrupt, some even treasonous bunch that we want to remove and replace.

      Dr. Edwin Vieira: ‘The language “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” sets out a constitution duty in Congress. It embraces a constitutional power as well. That brings into play Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, which delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”. The power to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” is one of those “all other Powers”. Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever “Law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the * * * Power [to call a Convention]’. (end quote)

      Third, the problem is not that we do not already have the laws in place through the contracts that ALL who serve within our government(s) are under – US Constitution and each state’s Constitution – we do. The problem is enforcement.

      Who does the US Constitution assign the duty of enforcement to? It is NOT to those who serve within our governments;state and general, legislative, executive, or judicial – it is assigned to “We the People of the united States” as the Militia – trained as the military is required to be trained, and knowledgeable in both the US Constitution and their state Constitution.

      Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.“

      John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions“ basically saying that it IS the American people as the Militia that has constitutionally assigned duties to:
      — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      It is important to understand the problem, and it is not a convention adding to, if not totally dest5oying, the US Constitution that is not being enforced now or after. The problem is enforcement of our laws as assigned. We need to do it, and do it constitutionally.

      Reply this comment
  4. Mike Murray 24 April, 2016, 08:25

    Great stuff, but…
    Discussing what is “lawful” is helpful from an educational standpoint. Examining what the overlords find doable however… well, that is a whole different animal. The things that would have been unthinkable for government in the past have now become “reasonable” and commonplace. The great mass of both D’s and R’s find the current “long train of Abuses and Usurpations” not only acceptable, but necessary. When that is the case, what are the chances of changing course? Is it even possible without some catastrophic event as a wake-up call?

    Reply this comment
  5. Famnp 24 April, 2016, 11:32

    Anyone from Idaho needs to be aware of the renegotiation of the Columbia Treaty which engulfs all of Idaho under international rule. Go to the April 15, Death of Idaho post at:
    idahoansagainstagenda21.weebly.com

    Reply this comment
  6. Vinny 24 April, 2016, 11:33

    What a great and informative and educational comment Cal, nothing short of brilliant, as your comments usually are. Nice job young man, thank you. Should it eventually come down to it, this old Korean Vet remains quite able, and will proudly stand side by side with you and my other Oath Keeper brothers and sisters. God Bless and protect this Sovereign, Constitutional Republic.

    Reply this comment
  7. Hal 24 April, 2016, 11:56

    The John Birch Society has been trying to get this message out for years,but noone wants to listen

    Reply this comment
  8. stkfox 24 April, 2016, 14:37

    With all due respect, a convention of states would be a colossal waste of time and money. Know that Geroge Soros is currently funding any number of con-con petitions in order to get his own agenda passed. And besides, no one is enforcing the Constitution now, what pray tell, would suddenly change to “make” anyone enforce it in the future?
    Con Con, bad idea…..state nullification, great idea. Much more attainable.

    Reply this comment
  9. Elias Alias Author 24 April, 2016, 14:40

    I am enjoying and appreciating the comments here. Thank you each for taking time to share your thoughts. I would like to recall a screen from the video presentation by Michael Shaw above. It says,

    “Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

    That statement is from the United Nations Habitat 1 Conference Report of 1975.

    So my questions for readers here include these queries —

    Have we noticed the fact that the United Nations is headquartered in our own country, in New York? And are we aware that the United States is heavily embedded in the United Nations? And are we baffled by the recent activities of the BLM, the EPA, and the U.S. Forest Service, which are pressing our western States’ farmers and ranchers and loggers and miners off their lands? And finally, can we trace any connections between the BLM, EPA, and USFS and the United Nations’ Agenda 21 thrust? Could this shed light on *why* government is now attacking ranchers, farmers, loggers, and miners and driving them off their lands?

    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor

    Reply this comment
    • Ivan Berry 24 April, 2016, 19:22

      Alias, yes, I have been aware of all you mentioned concerning property rights, as well as all other rights that should not be legislated due to their unalianable status as God given or natural rights. Also, awareness of the globalist posture of all UN functionaries has long been acknowledged by many but limited of my associates. No matter whether they call themselves socialists, mercantilists, crony capitalists, Democrats, Republicans, Fabians, Communists ( and some Libertarians), among them you always have Progressives whose method of operation involves change, constant change so that none become confortable and satisfied with the way things are, but always confused, disoriented and disenfranchised. So far, this site has not attended their population control efforts, just saying
      Years ago I was contacting my State’s D.C. Senators and Congressmen and women to get the UN out of our country and to get the US out of the UN, all to no avail. I still do so and will continue so long as I draw breath.
      OathKeepers has shown a wider understanding of the situation by giving members more information concerning remedy than have others, so my appreciation is unbounded. I am honored to among such a different kind of the elite.
      No suggestions come to mind since OathKeepers stays on top of most any concerns that have and likely will come up. Again, thanks.

      Reply this comment
    • Walter davis 24 April, 2016, 19:48

      I have noticed the UN’s involvement and how we have not benefited from it since we got involved in Korea. I have also thought in years past that the land it occupies could be better used by someone like Trump! I mean up until now he was a real estate developer….

      But I have watched them through sub groups fiance the purchase of some large plots of land through municipalities with front groups. The international avian society, or something like that, paid for most of a 250 acre farm I was living on. I was told my lease was over because they were going to use the 220 year old farm house as a office /meeting place for bird watchers. The house was boarded up and left to decay. The place is supposed to be a park now but no one is allowed on the property..

      I tracked the name of the group to the UN.

      Reply this comment
    • Jacqueline 25 April, 2016, 18:44

      Elias, the UN is not just headquartered in NY, but has an office in each one of our states, with additional ‘satellite’ sites stationed in universities as well. The IL site has a posting for a legal conference hosted by the John Marshall law school; the IA site is out of Iowa City where the university is located, etc. All sites first post the UN seal followed by the US seal. Coupled with the ‘green’ organizations, the net is well crafted and comprehensive…insidious and beyond disturbing.

      I thank you for the lecture. Having followed this issue for many years, my question has always been what in the heck to DO about it, and the lecture provided an option I’d not previously encountered. Again, thank you.

      Reply this comment
  10. Steve 25 April, 2016, 03:38

    Listening to Michael Shaw; He used the word Cog as a distribution point to regulate disbursement of funds; I think he means revenue sharing with a stick, in other words to get revenue from the Federal government their are certain requirements imposed on local governments to receive revenue, like special projects that the Federal government wants done locally whether “We The People” like it or not, or we get no revenue sharing from the Federal government (Like Collective punishment). My question is give me an example of what a Cog as a Agency would appear as, if I was trying to locate one in my local area? This is very disturbing to me!! Maybe Cal or Elias could give me a example? And I guess this is all part of U. N. Agenda 21? And maybe I might need a better definition?

    Reply this comment
  11. SIO 25 April, 2016, 09:50

    You believe what you know by experience, what you are/were taught through education/indoctrination systems and your fear economical and/or physical impairment. This presents extreme difficulty in required change to ones self in that it would require reeducation. Removal of the fear and provide a moderate guaranty against economic depletion or deprivation.

    Stated in almost everything I read today I see the mention of the slow but ever continuing destruction of our Constitution and enslavement of the world’s peoples while in the same text I read how we must do something to make the corrections required.

    For close to a Century now the evil has prevailed along with a growing technology in fields that can/are being used to subvert our awareness and subdue our ability to respond.

    From Electronics to Genetics we are being molded into a dimwitted subservient society, which will eventually be diminished by an incredible number.

    I would envision a greater success in resolving our problems by those that understand what is/has taken place to take control of the recovery and take the required actions ourselves. This I perceive as having a greater probability of success rather than attempting reeducation and hopeful belief change in the outlying masses.

    Do we have a century to make the changes? Do we have a Decade in which to bring about this change? Do we have five years to obtain the mass needed to even make a position known? I don’t think we do.

    There are any number of saying, versus, scriptures that say something like; ‘Teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish’, ‘you reap what you sow’, ‘An Eye for an Eye’ and we see what is being said here, right?

    I feel comfortable in saying I’m sure someone will respond to this and ask; so what is your genius plan? My response is simple and concise; If you can not see a plan or have to be convinced into seeing what is wrong and required then you need not have a plan, continue on with your wonderful free and prosperous life. But if you understand that it is up to those that already understand and see the required solution, the plan is simple indeed universal in resolution.

    I repeat! How much time do we have? Could we be within countable heartbeats of the end game?

    Reply this comment
  12. Lawrence 25 April, 2016, 10:14

    The time is long-past for simply endlessly exposing the wrongdoing of the power brokers who race pell-mell to destroy freedom. There was a time when exposing wrongdoing automatically meant ending it. It is not just freedom that is being eradicated; ethics are also being destroyed. The power seekers no longer feel threatened by what we say, or even what we think. All finger-pointing is now useless. None of it addresses the all-important question: What are you going to do to stop it?

    Reply this comment
  13. Chris 25 April, 2016, 18:55

    Brother Elias,

    As I read the story on our website entitled, “Subtle Statecraft Part One: Michael Shaw and Freedom Advocates”, I was a bit disturbed while reading this; “This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law.” I have studied this subject quite a bit and have found unalienable and Inalienable to mean the exact same thing. I actually have the Noah Webster 1828 American dictionary of the English Language and here are the definitions of both:

    INA’LIENABLE, adjective [Latin alieno, alienus.]

    Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

    UNA’LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

    If you will notice, when you read both definitions, they mean the same thing. You will notice that when Noah defined the term Inalienable, he starts the definition with Unalienable. Both definitions mean the same thing; Can not be taken or given away. I remember reading that Thomas Jefferson actually wrote inalienable in the draft of the Declaration of Independence and then wrote Unalienable in the final copy because it sounded better. I have heard people over the years try to pronounce the words different, (such as UN- uh-leen-uh-ble instead of Un -alien-able) to try and convince me that they have different definitions just by pronouncing the word different, I believe this is revisionism and amounts to spreading confusion, obviously if you pronounce tomato different than your friend does, it doesn’t become an apple. People really need to comprehend that our rights come from Nature and Natures God and because of free will, even God himself won’t take them away. As I said, our rights cannot be taken away, they can only be temporarily withheld from us through slavery. I believe Unalienable and Inalienable to be synonyms and with all due respect to Mr. Shaw, I believe he is confused. I am sure he is probably way smarter than I am, but I may have the advantage since I am an Autodidact as many of the founding generation was and did not have the disadvantage of being taught at a modern day left wing college.

    Respectfully and In Liberty,

    Chris

    Reply this comment
  14. Tucson Rick 29 April, 2016, 07:54

    I have my own feelings and thoughts about the article and find it most enlightening. However, my comment is based on your article referring us to the message. I cannot help but note that every time a film is made, or an article is published, or almost any action is taken by OK, it is always the exact same cast of characters involved as the public display of the political/social/Constitutional issue. The films always contain the same cast of characters, the articles are always published by the same authors, etc. I believe you are providing fuel to the progressives and other unconstitutional idiots by doing this. They can always say, “look, it’s just those same ol’ ‘crazies’ spouting off again”.
    Why don’t you get some other people to portray our message. This would increase everyone’s perception that there are MANY people who share your views.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*