Confessions Of A Treatyphobe

by Tom Remington

Editor’s Note: Reprinted with permission.

By Jim Beers

“My name is Jim Beers and I am a treatyphobe.”

I grew up in the period of wildlife abundance in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the first time I hunted with my Dad, the dream of spending my life managing and preserving the use and cultural heritage provided by US fish and wildlife was always in my mind.

When I studied wildlife management in college and when I worked for the Utah Fish and Game and then the US Fish and Wildlife Service after a stint in the Navy; fish and wildlife management and use, like American freedoms and the American way of life were still intact. Today, fish and wildlife management and use, like American government, American freedoms, American culture and traditions, and American society are in tatters and on the verge of disappearance.

I lay much of the blame for this decline on the sordid manipulation of the Treaty powers contained in the US Constitution by persons with hidden agendas. That is not to say that this power is wrongly described therein, it is to say that this power as it has evolved in the past century has eroded the strong foundation of Constitutional government and fish and wildlife use and management as we knew it.

I am “taking pen to paper” here because yesterday I wrote about the potential for the current Administration (Obama et al) and the current US Senate (Reid et al) to cynically craft and line up a few nations to sign a UN Treaty “On Small Arms and Ammunition” that, when signed by the President (of the US) and ratified by 2/3 of the Senators “present” whenever old Harry (Reid) deigns to ask for a vote, automatically becomes “the Law of the land” per the Constitution. I further speculated that it would mean the inevitable demise of our 2nd Amendment rights.

A lawyer that I respect essentially responded that such a scenario was unlikely because such a treaty would not and could not change the Constitution and therefore would be challenged and found to be unable to change our rights. I was crestfallen but I accept that lawyerly advice.

Therefore I have joined Treatyphobics Anonymous and as my first step in overcoming my phobia about Treaties will try to explain my formerly inexplicable fear of Treaties so that I might return to societal confidence in the Treaty-making authority of federal leaders.

When I went to work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1960’s I unknowingly entered into an era of societal turbulence and change that was not only reflected in fish and wildlife programs but indeed hijacked those programs and the powers they contained. I can only say this now, because while I was immersed in it until fired in 1999, it was truly like the old saw of not being able “to see the forest for the trees”. Allow me to explain.

US fish and wildlife were unmanaged and freely used until the late 1800’s. In 1896, new state laws about wildlife were upheld by the Supreme Court in GEER v. Connecticut wherein it was held that states “owned” all the fish and wildlife within their borders. This was the cornerstone that began the increased management and sustainable use of fish and wildlife by accountable (to state resident voters) State, not federal, politicians and managers.

In 1917, the federal government ratified a TREATY with Canada to protect about 200 species of birds (nearly all migratory game birds and songbirds) that Migrated between these two nations. The authority for the federal government to subsequently claim ALL authority over all of these named birds was upheld by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Missouri in 1920. Ray Holland was one of my (as a young duck hunter) early heroes and to this day I have a photograph of him standing, cigar in hand, on the Mall in DC in the early 1920’s. Federal authority for years protected and increased those migratory birds for uses from hunting and bird watching to protection of agricultural crops and wetlands. Today I would argue that they no longer do that, if anyone would care to debate the point.

Let’s fast forward to my 32 years with the USFWS. As societal turbulence (anti-war, drugs, “free”-love, etc.) shook the land, federal fish and wildlife management and use was subverted and perverted into something 180 degrees out of synch with American traditions and cultures. Treaty manipulation became a hidden factor in this perversion.

Consider two federal laws that have changed our world dramatically, The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1. An Endangered Species Act passed Congress in 1969 but it was found to have “no teeth’. So a UN Convention was concocted and ratified on “International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” (“Small Arms Treaty” anyone?) in 1973. That same year (wow, did they do that quickly) the federal government enacted the Endangered Species Act we all came to know and (only a few of us) love.

2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was introduced in 1976 by an Arkansas Senator (funny how those guys and gals keep popping up in these scenarios about subverting US society) who joked that “the best thing about this law (he was fishing for “environmental” votes at the time) was that there wasn’t one of them Marine Mammals within 500 miles of Arkansas”. It followed:

1931/49 – Whaling Convention Act and amendments.

1957 – Fur Seal (Alaska) Act

1958 – Convention on “Living Resources of the High Seas”.

1970 – 8 Species of Whales declared “Endangered”.

1972 – A Treaty on Seals.

1973 – A Treaty on Polar Bears. (As I write this, the paper reports that the US introduced a ban on the international trade by Canadian natives of polar bear skins, teeth, and claws from their own robust and sustainably-managed and hunted polar bear populations. Fortunately, this political trashing of the rural and native people of our strongest ally and neighbor was defeated by a surprisingly erudite UN vote.)

Now remember that I am ignoring a whole bunch of simultaneously nefarious stuff involving other fish and wildlife things during these years. For instance:

- Manipulating a Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and new Treaties with Japan and Russia to quietly add new “federally protected” birds that had been specifically excluded like cormorants (that soon overran hatcheries and fish farms) and pelicans (that soon became “Endangered” and now overrun docks) and hawks and owls that, like protected wolves and grizzly bears, soon grew in numbers and destruction impacts on other birds and desired wildlife.

- Closing public lands to access and management (Wilderness Act of 1964).

- Wild Horse and Burro Act (1971) giving federal protection to such destructive and overpopulated animals.

- Gradual reorientation of federal lands into being lands OUTSIDE state and local authority and lands oriented to “Native Ecosystems” instead of the purposes for which they were purchased.

- Closure of public lands to uses (and management tools) like logging and grazing.

- Proliferating designations by Executive Orders and bureaucratic regulations to close public land from energy access and development to closing more access with Roadless Areas, the destruction of trails, nuisance regulations, draconian law enforcement, and entry fees.

Now remember, what I am about to say comes from someone that is not a lawyer. If I had a buck for every time I heard, in my federal career, that “we” had authority over private property and state governments because “we” (us federal guys, not you out there or any of those state “cowboy legislatures” or redneck farmers) had treaties and the laws implementing them on “our” side, well I would be fishing off New Zealand or bird shooting in Argentina (it is early fall there) right now. Government Solicitors and those bureaucrats that were promoted to ever-higher responsibilities (“responsive to management skills and abilities” types) were constantly maneuvering with New Age Lawyers and their environmental/animal rights clients and supporters to “interpret” the laws and treaties in supportive (of government expansion) ways. They also worked hard to identify and “suggest” new laws and regulations to “save” more and to “plug loopholes” that frustrated federal power growth. Writing suggested Treaty language and getting court findings to serve as precedents (the “right” court at the “right” time) and then writing regulations that served the original but mostly unnoticed federal/ “New Age” supporters agendas was what federal employees and their advisors were paid and rewarded to do in those days.

Those 2 federal laws (ESA & MMPA) created a federal and public mindset, and a whole trail and flow of increasingly un-American laws and regulations. This soon did two things:

1. Established the now-acceptable practice that the federal government could “Take” private property use and value from private owners for whatever reason it contrives, like “Critical Habitat”, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. This broke the back as far as federal advocates were concerned of that old, out-dated concept about “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” that those old rich guys (Our Founding Fathers) wrote somewhere (the US Constitution, 5th Amendment). Who wouldn’t “take” all they could if there was no cost? Who could afford to “take” all the federal government has “taken” in the past 40 years if they had to pay for it?

2. Established the current belief that states no longer “owned” any fish or wildlife except what the feds have left alone thus far.

Once we accepted these two principles and their future place in our laws, our fate was and is sealed.

When federal bureaucrats and politicians saw that Treaties could give them absolute power over everything from private property to the authority and jurisdiction of states – THEIR FUTURE GROWTH AND MARCH TO ABSOLUTE POWER WAS ASSURED. No court would ever again uphold a citizen defending private property (be it dog, farm, chicken, or home.) No state would ever again be able to stop federal orders that closed public lands in a state or denied gun rights on federal lands in the state or stopped logging or farming or grazing on public and private lands within a state. The rest was academic:

- Federal lands, budgets, regulations, and power have grown dramatically over the past 40 years.

- State rights have all but disappeared.

- State employees have become mere extensions of federal policies, receivers of federal welfare (excuse me grants and assistance) and enemies of state residents.

- Federally protected overpopulations of Seals choke the mouth of the Pacific NW Rivers eating enormous amounts of salmon (thereby sustaining their overpopulation) while the same federal government protecting them tears down dams, shuts down irrigation districts, reduces human water supplies and power generation, and closes vast ocean areas to fishermen; all to “save salmon”.

- Federally protected and federally dispersed wolves spread disease, danger, and carnage in federally-designated states on both public and private property and thereby destroy rural culture, rural economies, and rural communities where federal lands and the destruction of animal (wild and domestic) husbandry and use is being federally driven to make way for ever-growing federal land enclaves.

- Marine Mammals that never leave state waters and were heretofore under state authority like manatee and sea otters are, like growing lists of other wild resident and therefore formerly state-controlled animals like sage grouse, pupfish, suckers, wolves, etc. placed under absolute and never-ending federal jurisdiction (every State move must be “approved by federal authorities” once such jurisdiction is proclaimed). This set the groundwork for the current cry for “federal laws” to “restore native ecosystems” and “eliminate invasive species” (what else is there given the nonsensical definitions of these “rubbery” concepts?)

A century of American Progressive challenges to the “ownership of the commons”, an ancient concept about whether “The King” or “The People” (now where have I heard that last term before?) owned “public” land and the fish and wildlife inhabiting it has become intertwined, like mating snakes with a century of “progressive” beliefs and actions about the “smart” few governing the “ignorant” (scientifically-challenged?) many.

Those 2 results of Treaties (ESA & MMPA) being (rightly or wrongly assumed by federal bureaucrats and their political bosses and an “evolving Supreme Court”) justification for laws demolishing the Constitution and leaving only the power of a majority vote (i.e. no “Rights” just power) have much to do with the state of America today.

As an old bureaucrat I may be way off base about how Treaties are supposed to work but I know what I saw and it is like a B-25 tail gunner walking through Dresden in1946: it ain’t pretty and you wonder how it all happened and how it ever went this far.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I will come to any more of these meetings. All this baring your soul stuff is too stressful on an old-timer.

Jim Beers

Related Articles

• Are States Stripped Of Their Power To Manage Wildlife Because Of Endangered Species Act And Commerce Clause? (3)
• Panel Roundtable: Canadian Gray Wolf Introduction into Yellowstone (8)
• Maine Should Bring Back Snaring (15)
• Lord Monckton: Don’t Allow Obama To Sign Climate Change Treaty (1)
• Marshall Sage: Government Control by “Eliminating The Sovereignty Of The States” (1)
• Black Bear Blog’s Top 10 Stories Of 2008 – Author’s Choice (8)
• Maine’s “Incidental Take Permit” For Canada Lynx – Information/Clarification (5)

When Americans Need Leadership

by Tom Remington

When settlers came to this country, what began as a simple escape to perhaps a better life, a chance to expand, to own land and to grow, became a struggle for freedom and independence. It was not the dreams of most who came here that they were in search of freedom but after putting distance between the iron hand of the King and life in America, many settlers began to understand what true freedom was all about.

It certainly was no easy task. It took a great deal of time before Thomas Jefferson and the others could pound out a declaration of independence, especially knowing full well that it meant surely war with England but it meant freedom and the newly experienced freedoms were worth fighting for.

Most don’t realize that from the time the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 and the Constitution was passed in 1787, on at least two occasions some of the people wanted to give up on the efforts to secure freedom. They postured for a dictator to take over. Some thought Patrick Henry could do the job. Americans were scared. Even though they liked the freedoms they had in America, it was a different lifestyle and fearing the unknown resorted to the ways of which they knew, those from their past. It took strong leadership and the words and example of someone who believed more strongly than the people that the path America had chosen was the right path.

History has taught us that the people have always needed leadership. Even though the entire concept of being a free American was our strength founded in independence, celebrating the God-given rights as was recognized by our founding fathers, even realizing the ownership of land and property in order to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as human beings we still look for leadership.

The antithesis to liberty and independence is a powerful government bent on controlling every aspect of a person’s life. For those who understand history and have a real appreciation of what constitutes liberty and independence, will push back against the tyranny of a dictator or a government usurping the limited powers granted it by the Constitution.

Jefferson explained to his fellow Americans, who out of fear and confusion sought the strong hand of a dictator, reminding them of their past.

One who entered into this contest from a pure love of liberty and a sense of injured rights, who determined to make every sacrifice, to meet every danger for the re-establishment of those rights on a firm basis, who did not mean to expend his love and substance for the wretched purpose of changing this master for that, but to place the powers of governing him in a plurality of hands of his own choice, so that the corrupt will of no one man might in future oppress him, must stand dumbfounded and dismayed when he is told that a considerable portion of that plurality had meditated the surrender of them into a single hand.

A leader will never impose himself or his rule over the people. A strong leader can direct the people and bring their focus back onto what has and will make them great, make them the free humans God intended. The people are feeling imposed upon and are not comfortable with the direction they are being taken. The time is ripe for a leader, someone who will not make false promises nor seek to destroy American’s liberties but to restore them. A leader, who by example, will bring the focus of the American people back to a strength rooted in independence and freedom.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Thomas Jefferson: Declaration Of Independence And Deterring A Dictatorship (2)
• Open My Eyes That I Might See (4)
• This Is Your Constitution! (6)
• America The Great – Now Let’s Take It To Hell (3)
• Who Plays With Your Freedom (1)
• The “New Fascism” At Work In North Carolina (0)
• Constitutionality Of Passed Health Care Bill Will Be Challenged (1)

“Individual Mandate” at Core of ObamaCare is Unconstitutional, New Report Concludes

by Tom Remington

Washington, D.C.: Arguments by backers of President Obama’s health care proposals that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which permits the federal income tax, are incorrect.

So concludes a new “What Conservatives Think” publication, “Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” written by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have government-approved health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate.”

* Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress’ authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

* The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation taxes under But Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

* Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this strict constitutional standard.

Says Patterson, “Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare’s individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars – and smarter than the authors of the Constitution.”

“Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT.html.

Sheriff Richard Mack on Freedomizer Radio

by Greg Farber

Pt1 Sheriff Mack on Freedomizer Radio

Pt2

Pt3

Pt4

Pt5

Those CPACer Nut Jobs

by Tom Remington

Did you listen to any of the speeches at the CPAC convention? What a bunch of radical, angry nut jobs, saying things like we have to stop spending money we don’t have and referring to the U.S. Constitution, like that’s anything we need in our lives right now. And of course Glenn Beck took the prize with his way over the top keynote address, making statements saying it wasn’t good enough anymore just to suck less than the other guys. I mean really. Where does he come off saying such far right things?

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• The Tea Party Movement Should Stand Alone (2)
• The “New Fascism” At Work In North Carolina (0)
• Feds Respond to Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit (0)
• National Awareness Day For National Awareness Days (2)
• Constitutionality Of Passed Health Care Bill Will Be Challenged (1)
• ‘Tis The Season For Random Thoughts (0)
• Open My Eyes That I Might See (4)

Bill O’Reilly does not respect the 2nd Amendment

by Greg Farber

His own words on FAUX news prove it.. A weather disaster, and a “National Emergency” nullifies the Constitution according to Bill Oh Really.. Just another Roman Catholic supporting his Massa Knight of Malta And Popers ass kisser Rupert Communist Murdoch..

Bill O’Reilly vs OATHKEEPERS

What Are You “Required” To Give For Information For The Census?

by Tom Remington

What Constitution do you think we have ?

by Greg Farber

Senate Report 93-549

War and Emergency Powers Acts,
Executive Orders and the New World Order

The Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) summarizes the situation that we face today – except it is far worse today than it was in 1973 !!

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years [now 77 years], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have – from, at least, the Civil War – in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”

The Foreword to the Report states in part -

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four Presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law [hundreds more since 1973, particularly in the Clinton administration since Jan 21, 1993]. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

When the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes that Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law, were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened, Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally “without day”) and thus when Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body, and the only lawful, constitutional power that could declare war was no longer lawful, or in session.

The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist. President Lincoln executed the first executive order written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the President under executive order ever since. When Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or by Constitutional Law; placing the American people under martial rule ever since that national emergency declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for the United States of America temporarily ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake the nation in their own image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control.

President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special field code to govern his actions under martial law and which justified the seizure of power, which extended the laws of the District of Columbia, and which fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended The Laws of War and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government became the presumed conqueror of the people and the land.

Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the nation has been ruled under Military Law by the Commander of Chief of that military; the President, under his assumed executive powers and according to his executive orders. Constitutional law under the original Constitution is enforced only as a matter of keeping the public peace under the provisions of General Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside.

President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete plans for reestablishing constitutional government in the Southern States and end the martial rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in Amendment to the Constitution created a new citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction. New laws for the District of Columbia were established and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the United States could be created. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first by New York and then by California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “COMMON LAW” in the federal government.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)

In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United Nations jurisdiction. The “constitution” of the United Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet Union.

Documentation -

Executive Order 1 – http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm;

General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) “Lieber Code” -

http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/historical/LIEBER-CODE.txt;

Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) -

http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html;

The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917);

National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933);

Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933); Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933);

Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260;

Title 12 USC, Section 95a – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html;

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188;

and the United Nations Treaty.

All documentation is available through your local government document repository library branch or at the Library of Congress.

Observations – Arguments which suggest that the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was not a lawful or legal treaty of peace between warring nations and that the American Colonies never really attained or obtained lawful or legal sovereignty, must also presume, by their own argument, that the Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights were never organic documents of true lawful or legal standing.

Conclusion – The Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights are no longer in effect in their original form or where they conflict with the United Nations Treaty and other international agreements. Citizens of the several States of the Union who were formerly sovereigns protected by the common law are now United States citizens and are thus subjects to International Admiralty jurisdiction.

Now that you know what you are up against, I hope the above data and the Senate Report 93-549 causes you to see red, pisses you off enough to start thinking and doing something about it. I am fighting for my freedom and my country, to defend and restore the Constitution, our Nation’s Sovereignty, Your Sovereignty, and Mine.
Are You??

The “New Fascism” At Work In North Carolina

by Tom Remington

Snow storms dumped ample amounts of the white stuff on parts of the mid-Atlantic states over the weekend. Unfortunately, some town’s leaders either have never heard of a U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights or somehow they think, like what happened in New Orleans, that just because the town declared an emergency, all of a sudden people give up their God-given and constitutional rights.

Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person’s own premises.

I guess they thought they were doing everyone a favor ALLOWING them to possess a gun on their own property. Uh, uh, uh! This cannot be allowed.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Feds Respond to Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit (0)
• Wayne LaPierre: “Anti-gunners now control every lever of federal power” (7)
• AG Holder: “A Few Gun Related Changes We’d Like To Make” (4)
• Wisconsin Teacher On Leave After Finding Photo Of Her With Gun On Facebook (2)
• Some Believe The Second Amendment Guarantees All The Rest (0)
• Kansas Introduces Firearms Freedom Act (1)
• McDonald v. Chicago: Does 2nd Amendment Apply To States? (11)

USA Has A History Of Attacking Themselves To Go To War!

by Greg Farber

When you find Knights of Malta in the details, over and over again, expect deception.

This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War. This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their “cost plus” exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster’s Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire. “A stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I’m sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years. Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial.” – Ken Loach While Massimo Mazzucco’s first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called “Islamic terrorism”. The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called “Project for the New American Century”, published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events.
The New American Century

Next Page »