I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America

When someone mentions “slavery” we immediately think of black people being forced to work for free. If they do not work for us for free then we beat them with fists, whips, or threaten death. Sure the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, but I contend that slavery still continues today and with even greater fervency than it did in the past.

The 13th Amendment reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definitions:
Slavery:

Peonage:
18 USC 1581: (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)
Forced Labor:
18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

Involuntary Servitude:

18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

So what the 13th Amendment outlaws is you forcing people to work for free for repayment of a debt. You cannot hold someone captive by phyiscal force, threats of physical force, or legal coercion to be bound into compulsory service against ones will. In Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911) it was decided by the Supreme Court that one could not be forced to refund money (link).

Later on in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Kozminski it was decided that you could not place someone in [psychological] fear of involuntarily servitude. The Court held that, “[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.”

With this said, what does that make of the taxation scheme of America?

We are told that we must pay taxes. The good old saying of “Two things in life are certain, death and taxes” is familiar to many Americans. But, why are taxes so certain? If the 13th Amendment does not allow us to be forced into physical labor and the courts have ruled that you also cannot be forced to believe that you have no option of working against your will, then why is it that you are working against your will?

If you don’t think that you are enslaved, then try to tell the IRS or the government that you are not going to pay taxes anymore. They are going to threaten you with penalties, fees, court, levying on your paycheck, coming and taking your property, and lastly… putting you in prison. Back in the “slave days” if a salve said they were not going to work for free, they were beat. Today, if you say that you are not going to work for free, the IRS threatens and sends the dogs after you. Same thing but different methods of accomplishing the same thing – salvery.

In United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) the court specifically said, “Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion.” (link)

Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.” I plea now to you, how is this not a “climate of fear”? Either you pay the government out of fear or you do whatever they say out of fear (i.e. highway robbery).

It is important to note at this point that I am not against taxation itself. But, I am against forced taxation. If you tell me that I must pay taxes on every dollar I earn, then how is that not slavery? Would it be any different if the government told you that you can keep 100% of whatever you make at Job A and then you have to come to Job B (government factory or something) and work for free? I contend, no. Just because the government does not force you to work in a certain location, them demanding a percentage of your earnings is still them forcing you to work for free – is it not? If you do not understand what the difference is between forced taxation (direct) and voluntary taxation (indirect), I suggest you read up on each and decide what type of taxation the Federal/State Income Tax really is. (Crash course: Direct taxation is a tax that you cannot avoid and essentially says, you are a human so pay it. Indirect taxation is a tax that you can avoid, such as a tax on liquor which you can circumvent by distilling your own, buying from someplace that does not have tax [Indian Resevervation maybe?], or simply by not buying liquor.).

If you disagree with me, then I’d be happy to entertain your thoughts. I’ve yet to find anyone that can rebutt my case above. Even if you feel that paying taxes is your duty then that still does not answer my question of whether or not taxation as it is now is slavery or not. The issue is, does the government force you to give them a cut of your labor pay otherwise they threaten you?

Furthermore, if you agree with me then why are you continuing to be a slave – either by choice or by your silence. Is this what you want of your children, friends, and neighbors – to be enslaved in fear? Is it somehow OK for your government to enslave you instead of an individual? As I started out, slavery can no longer be considered just for black people – it is for everyone. You are living it now and have been for some time…

The Destruction of the First Amendment

The Constitution. The highest law in America.
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“I declare this to be an unlawful assembly. I order all those assembled to disperse.”

Can someone please tell me what law is overriding the Constitution that is not allowing these people to peacefully assemble?

This really disgusts me. I wish they would have just stood their ground and got arrested and taken it to court on Constitutional law grounds.

Obama Trial on 26 January 2010

This is an update to the post that was published on 06 September 2009, entitled Sept 8, Obama Eligibility Hearing.

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
  

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and “possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.”

Sept 8, Obama Eligibility Hearing

So why are we hearing nothing of this? Nobody knows anything about it – the mainstream media surely is not reporting on it. I think the answer is simple… September 8th, 2009, is the day in which Obama has chosen to address the school children. Coinscidence? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. This is the biggest break through in the Obama eligibility controversy and Obama is not about to let it make the headlines. So, what do you do to cover something up like this? Easy – you make something equally as controversial and let that controversy cover the other controversy. In showbiz, I believe we call it smoke-and-mirrors. I will try to keep updated on this subject.

By Norton Nowlin, here

I wonder what is going on in the mind of sixty-five year old Federal District Judge David O. Carter since he proclaimed, on July 13, 2009, in his Santa Ana, California courtroom that the case filed by attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Keyes v. Obama, will move forward in the attempt of the plaintiff to seek a court mandate to force President Barack Obama to disclose his original birth certificate for public scrutiny. I wonder how many censuring calls he has received from his fellow judges around the country, the ones who have curtly dismissed the same, and similar, cases seeking public disclosure of Barack H. Obama’s original birth certificate and his other professional and educational records. Perhaps Obama, himself, has given the judge a call to discuss his provocative decision.

From what I know about the man, Carter, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran, must vividly recall, and occasionally reflect on, the oath he took in 1967 upon being commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. military, which was only to protect, preserve, and defend Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Similarly, he took another oath of office before assuming the duties of a federal judge, on October 22, 1998, after nomination by President Bill Clinton on June 35, 1990, and confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 2009. The oath, per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is worded as shown below:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as U.S. District Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Quite evident to the reader, in the above oath, is the allegiance sworn by any federal district judge to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Moreover, that individual judge swears to God, and to the people of the United States, a promise to properly administer justice according to all prevailing laws of the United States. If this is so, I wonder why Judge Carter has been the only federal judge, prior to and subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, to consider the requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution, for the President to be a natural born citizen, as a law that should be enforced. Judge Carter’s statement, that, as a former U.S. Marine, he realizes the importance of a person being constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, indicates his apparent willingness to see that constitutional law is properly administered and followed in his court. His actions seem to reflect the statement by the great John Adams, that “we are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

Yet, in the face of all the blatant suspicion that Barack Obama has brought to bear on the legitimacy of his election as President, by the million-plus dollars he has spent in legal fees since October 2008 to oppose public disclosure of a 12 dollar certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and copies of his other professional and educational records, I wonder if Judge Carter is going to end up ultimately thinking politically, instead of legally. I am referring to the state of mind displayed, for example, by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, when she dismissed the federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco Attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victim’s families, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush administration, on a basis of sovereign immunity instead of a lack of credible evidence. From what I have discovered factually concerning Dr. Hilton’s lawsuit, he had, and still has, some very damning evidence in his possession showing that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military, orchestrated what occurred on 9/11; and the only proper forum for presenting such evidence is in a court of law, where a preponderance of such evidence will vindicate, in a jury trial, the petition of the plaintiff, a forum which was denied Dr. Hilton and his clients.

While it is a truth that a standing U.S. President cannot be sued in federal court over what is deemed to be the ordinary legal, and just, processes for the enforcement of federal law, substantial evidence of criminal acts committed deliberately by the President or his agents, under color of executive authority, is certainly actionable. This would be true even if the impeachment process has not been initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives due to innocent ignorance, or as a result of the placating machinery of corrupt political manipulation. In other words, Machiavellian political maneuvering in Congress should not be permitted to displace, or hamper, proper judicial review, that equity, justice, and, if need be, punishment are properly dispensed.

The exact opposite of this is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, when, supposedly, honorable judges, who had assumed their duties prior to Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power, allowed themselves to become servants of the evil Nazi Party, in order to keep their jobs. There are quite a few historical examples of lawsuits that were brought by law-abiding German men and women, between 1936 and 1942, against Adolf Hitler and his thugs, which were quickly dismissed on a basis of Hitler’s sovereign, all powerful, immunity. Currently, if it can be proven in a court of law that Barack H. Obama knew, at the time he declared himself a presidential candidate, that he was not born in the United States, that he has deliberately misrepresented himself as a natural born citizen, and that he has spent over a million dollars perpetuating a lie to the American people, a charge of criminal fraud would be the only appropriate action to be brought against the man.

Perhaps Judge Illston has called Judge Carter to express her dismay over his willingness to question Obama’s eligibility to be President; or maybe she is so politically oriented, and biased, toward Republican neo-conservatism that she would be more than happy to see Obama discredited and forced to vacate the Oval Office. In reality, it is difficult to know where the allegiances of most federal judges really lie, for after they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to their offices for life tenure, they can do essentially whatever they want, for or against the U.S. Constitution, and if they are not impeached, do it with total impunity; for impeachment, in reality, is not a legal process, but one thoroughly political. I recall that a high percentage of the nation’s electorate endorsed the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1958, but nothing ever came of it in the U.S. House of Representatives; and during the last 214 years, you can count on one hand the number of federal judges and justices who have formally been impeached, and on four fingers the number who have been convicted and removed from office.

From what I know about Judge David O. Carter, he seems to be a stand-up individual and one not likely pressured into handing down a decision determined by the effect of political influence. While neither Republican nor Democrat, I only hope that political party affiliation has had no bearing on the decision of Carter to proceed in his court toward a proper examination of the evidence. Nonetheless, only time will tell what type of federal judge Carter actually is. If suddenly the case, Keyes v. Obama, is dismissed, and disappears under a ruling of sovereign immunity, or on a less than cogent basis of the political forces exerted against Carter, the true colors and allegiance of a federal judge will be clearly revealed.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin as attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist and columnist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

Enemy List – I’m On it, Are You?

In the name of making a utopia, The Left has decided to squash opposition. How are they going to do that? Well, silence all opposing speech by labeling it rightwing extremism. Of course, how silly of me. Of course we would all get along if we just all towed-line and never agreed.

Sounds kind of like some of the dictatorships of past? You don’t like what we say or do? Well, then we are just going to shoot you in the head of do some sort of medical experiment on you or work you until you die. That way, with you removed, we can all can live happily. Psht…

Well, here is the pudding. Eat it up.  The DHS has made a draft of a document to fight this “rightwing extremist” conversation and organization. Some piece of the document below.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

I am anti-government (or at least, uber-small government), so I suspect that I would be grouped into this definition. I also believe in the power of the States too, so I also meet that requirement too. And of course I am pro-life, so that is three strikes against me. I am also a member of 9-12 Project and Campaign for Liberty, both of which are primarily small-government groups. I also am a supporter of Ron Paul, one of the few politicians that is not afraid of talking about reducing the size of government. And worse yet, I am a member of Lost Horizons, the group that believes in only paying taxes as the Constitution dictates! It looks like there is no denying that I am a rightwing extremist here!

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

I am against the President and his stance on immigration and I believe that every American has the ability to make life work. It is a disgrace to give people handouts due to a “group” that they belong to – to me it is akin to saying “we don’t believe you can make it because you are XYZ, so here is some $$$.” I also believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment. It was the first time in the history of the world that a government guaranteed the right for its citizens to bear arms. Why did the Founding Fathers do this – so we would be guaranteed the right to defend our lives, liberties, and freedoms should someone try to come take them. Again, I squarely meet this definition of what a rightwing extremist is.

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

I’ve never said that anything about Jewish Elites, but I do think that the only people in the world that can say “I am in deep debt, but let’s spend more money to get us out of debt (read: bailouts)” are the Elites. But regardless of whether or not they are true Elites, they still spend money like it isn’t theirs. Wait… it isn’t theirs. Again, I probably fall into this category as well.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

If a Veteran comes home and joins up, it is because they were disgruntled before they left. Just because you exit the military doesn’t mean that you are instantly pissed off. However, I know that some of us that were in the military (myself included) have been discharged and now look back and feel that they were not doing exactly what they were thought they were doing – defending this country and her Constitution.

(NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

I find it interesting that the makers of this oath said, “foreign and domestic.” Logically, one would think that invaders would be charging you on the battlefield – not be behind you giving orders. But someone out there had the insight that a destroyer of the Constitution may very well be domestic… and I think that is by far the greatest fear of mine that we are destroying the Constitution from within.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link to the document and the excerpts found here)

Stupid Terrorist

Dontcha just hate it when you get called names? Well, in this case, I’m proud to be a “terrorist.” Click here to see if you qualify as a terrorist.

What Income Taxes Really Are

There IS an Income Tax . . .

HOWEVER

“Everything” you earn
IS NOT
“Taxable Income”

Did YOU earn your money by:

WORKING FOR…

DOING BUSINESS WITH…

INVESTING IN…

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ?

If not, then those earnings
ARE NOT “taxable income”

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

That’s not very helpful, what exactly IS “income” since THAT is what you are taxing…

US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976) “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code”

What does the Dictionary say “income” is?

in·come: The monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments.

OK, “income” is all that I earn from my work and investments…just what I thought…

US Supreme Court, Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918): “We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income…”

WHAT !?…….”income” is NOT “all” money that I receive !? What does the Constitution say about a DIRECT TAX upon my earnings?

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

In response to the above Constitutional reference, your accountant or the IRS will probably refer to the 16th Amendment, commonly known as the “Income tax”. To which the Supreme Court would reply…

US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916): The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…

Additionally… Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress Report No. 80-19A,“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”:

Page CRS-5 (1979): “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [the Brushaber ruling], first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580.

The income tax is, therefore, is not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The “PRIVILEGE” you must participate in to earn “taxable income” is working for, doing business with, or investing in businesses majority-owned by the Federal Government or “Federal Instrumentalities”. If you make your money having nothing to do with the Federal Government, then your earnings are not “taxable income”.

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

(original)

Where Is Our Republic?

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

- United States Constitution Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1.

Our Founding Fathers agreed to a Republican form of Government for this young upstart nation vice a Democracy for many reasons, among which, as James Madison said “A pure democracy is unwieldy, dangerous in its passion, and subject to mob rule thereby lending itself to instability and violence. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

In a Republic, the majority may never have complete control over the minority. The rights of the minority are protected by the checks and balances built into the Republics by-laws. One of the checks and balances our Constitution provides was in how or country was represented at the Federal level. The members of the House of Representatives were elected by the people of the respective districts, the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of each of the several States. One chamber was for the people and one chamber for the States and the President was elected by a majority vote of the electors of the several States. This ensured that the rights, needs and desires of the PEOPLE and the STATES were represented at the Federal level.

Since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted to the Constitution, the voice of the States has been taken away. The Checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers have been removed and our form of governance has been whittled away to an unwieldy Democracy. The people vote for our President, the people vote for our Representatives and the people vote for the Senators. Fifty-one percent of the country now has complete control over the other 49 percent. Look back at the history of our nation, prior to the adopting of the 17th Amendment things were pretty smooth, the People and the States had to agree in order for legislation to pass both houses. Now the People have to agree with the People, which ever side has 51 percent will usually win. I am well aware of the Senate 60 vote filibuster issue, but I contend it is merely a matter of time before Harry Reid tries to change that. The House has already all but eliminated any input from the minority party, I don’t expect the Senate to be far behind.

In order to reacquire the promise of Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution, this American believes the road starts with repealing the 17th Amendment.

Written by: DJ

Return the Power to the States!

Face it, the Federal Government is running amok. It is time to return the power to the States.

(Daily Paul original here)(Arizona House of Representatives, bill HCR2024 here)

REFERENCE TITLE: Sovereignty; Tenth Amendment. | HCR 2024

Introduced by

Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “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”; and

The Right that Protects All Other Rights

Old article, but a good one. Obama may not come to our home and take our guns, but he can (and probably will) make it hard for you to get guns and also make it harder and more expensive to buy ammunition. Take if from the Founding Fathers, guns are the one right that protects all the other rights.