CHAPTER ONE

The root principle of all our republican institutions is “that the citizens of every distinct community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please...” 
Alexander H. Stephens
Parliamentary Manager and Debater in the United States Congress

It is the purpose within this thesis to employ the truth found within our Constitutional right to freedom of press and the God-given right to freedom of speech, and that within these two rights, we will defend our other rights with those means which God and nature has placed in our hands.  We shall look upon the Government of the present day and explore the idea, which they have usurped over the majority of the people of the United States, of whether or not they are entitled to regulate and infiltrate our individual lives, confiscate our pri-vate property, ravage our personal papers, prohibit our right to self-defense and the defense of our families and demand that we, as a free people, must decease and desist all actions, words and thoughts contrary to their way of doing.  We shall inquire whether or not this present day Government, having been sworn into office by the justices of the Courts, does indeed possess the right to be in power since they have been elected to office by a minority of the people who are entitled to vote in any given election.  That is to say, the present Adminis-tration, having been elected by only 43% of the popular vote, not counting the thousands of qualified voters who did not vote in the 1992 Presidential election, does not hold within itself the right to claim mandate.    Further we shall take a sensible look at the present day problems within a society of Socialistic ‘solutions’ and explore how we can rid ourselves of this vampirical, blood-sucking monster that daily drains us of all our freedoms and profits. 
It is the belief and philosophy of this progenitor that the people themselves are of such a “moral and intellectual excel-lence” that they are capable of governing themselves.  For as John C. Calhoun stated in 1848: “None but a people ad-vanced to a high state of moral and intel-lectual excellence are capable, in a civilized condition, of forming and main-taining free governments.”  Cal-houn also states that “men must be capable of self-government before they can enjoy liberty.”  This thesis holds to this foundation as its principle strength and bulwark of Truth.  It is the people who are, as Stephen A. Douglas so aptly pointed out, “capable of regulating our internal policing in all and every respect whatsoever, and we have the sole and exclusive and inherent right of gov-erning ourselves as in our own wisdom we think proper.” 
It is the words of that greatest of all patriots, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of these States, that we hold dear within the bosom of our hearts and minds:  “For ourselves we fought, for our-selves we conquered, and for our-selves alone we have a right to hold.” 
“Communities [of people],” stated Senator Brodhead of Pennsylvania to the United States Senate on February 28, 1854, “must be left to judge for them-selves what will best promote their own interests.”  Michigan’s United States Sen-ator Lewis Cass, praised as a loyal and true patriot by Daniel Webster, added we must insist that “self-gov-ernment in embryo states is a peculiar and very proud American doctrine.”  “The dogma of the Republic,” pro-claimed Alexis De Tocqueville, “is that the people are always right, just as the King Can Do No Wrong is the religion of monarchical states.”  The prominent Mis-sissippian, J. H. Hammonson wrote to J. F. H. Claiborne on December 24, 1848, asking “Shall we meekly bend our necks and receive their galling yoke or shall we resolutely, unflinchingly, con-tend for equal rights, all our rights under the Constitution to the very letter?” 
Does the government have the power to interfere with a right granted to the people in the States?  Historiographer Charles A. Beard, in his work titled An Economic Interpretation of the Consti-tution of the United States, states emphatically that “the Constitution was essentially...based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of prop-erty are anterior to government.”   So from whence comes their power?  The answer is, it is wrought by the same diseased process and on the same morbid plea that tyranny has always employed itself against liberty and justice--that age-old, time-worn excuse of usurpers--necessity; an excuse which is ever as-sumed as valid, because the usurper claims to be the sole judge of his necessity.
Therefore, says the plea of necessity, a new power is this day found under the Constitution of the United States.  This means that certain circumstances have transpired and the powers of the Constitution have thereby become en-larged.  The inference follows, of course, with equal reason that, when the cir-cumstances cease to exist, the powers of the Constitution will be contracted again to their normal state; that is, the powers of the Constitution of the United States are enlarged or contracted according to circumstances at the time.  Such rational is open to the extreme possibility, such as is now taking place in the courtrooms of this nation on a daily basis, of a double-standard of justice for the Whites and Blacks or the criminal and com-munity citizen or the rich and poor.  Mankind can not be surprised at seeing a Government, administered on such an interpretation of powers, blunder into a civil war, become despotic or approach the throes of dissolution.  After all, was not the American Revolution itself “a response to acts of power deemed ar-bitrary, degrading, and uncontrollable,” states Bernard Bailyn. 
If Government has the power to do now what it before did not, from where cometh that power?  “The national au-thor-ity should be weak,” writes promi-nent historian Allan Nevins.   “That Government is best which governs least” is a maxim best adopted.  President Millard Fillmore added in his inaugural address: “The government of the United States is a limited government.  It is con-fined to the exercise of powers expressly granted, and such others as may be necessary for carrying those powers into effect; and it is at all times an especial duty to guard against any infringement on the just rights of the States” and of the people.  “The dangers of a concen-tration of all power in the general government of a confederacy so vast as ours are too obvious to be disregarded.  You have a right,” President Franklin Pierce told the American people in his inaugural address, “to expect your agents [and political leaders] in every depart-ment to regard strictly the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States.” 
Such extreme unwillingness upon their part to permit the people their consigned rights is unnatural, unrea-sonable and contrary to the general precedents of history.  Its intolerance has a violence which neither truth nor justice nor religion can restrain.  The resistance to the demands of the peoples and persistence in aggressions upon those same peoples is the occasion of constant apprehension and futile warning of a Governments suicidal tendency.  When the contest for supremacy by a Gov-ernment on one side and self-defense of a people on the other--when the aim of the Government aggressor is ‘power, plunder and extended domination and rule’--there will be no concessions by that government, no compromises, no adjustments of results.  The alternative is subjugation by the bloody sword, or peace by absolute and total submission.  The latter condition can not and will not be accepted.  The former is, therefore, to be resisted as best we might. 
The conditions of peace or war make no change in the powers granted to the Government by the Constitution.  The at-tempt, therefore, by the Government, to exercise a power of confiscation, one not granted to it, is a mere usurpation.  To show how regardless the United States Government is of the limitations im-posed upon it by the Constitution of that same Government, let us look at the words of the fifth article of the first amendment, being one of those cases in which the present leaders of the country, in an abundance of heedlessness, are now throwing away.  It is the rights that the framers of the Constitution thought already sufficient to guard our well being.  The last two clauses of the article read: No person “shall be de-prived of life, liberty, or property, with-out due process of law; nor shall private property be taken.” 
Each and every individual, whatever the color of skin, religious beliefs, or political persuasion, has a share in this common good.  “It is utterly inconsistent with equality to pass measures which rob us of all share in the common property,” John C. Calhoun clearly points out.  This common good is the common property and vice versa.  One can scarcely antic-ipate such effrontery as would argue that “due process of law” means an act of Congress, that judicial power could thus be conferred upon the President or the Congress, and private property be con-fiscated; yea, legally stolen, for the purpose of controlling or protecting the people, without violating the Consti-tution which those very same leaders have sworn before God and their fellow humans to support and defend.  The un-con-stitutionality of the law is so palpable that  pillage and the wanton destruction of private property and personal rights are not permitted by the laws of peace or war among civilized nations. 
“Private property,” states that great loyalist John Quincy Adams, “not hav-ing been subject to legitimate capture...is not liable to the reason of limi-tation...private property is not the subject of lawful capture upon the people, it is perfectly clear that, in every stipulation, private property shall be respected; it shall not be carried away.” 
When the leaders of a government aspire to the acquisition of absolute, unlimited power, and the strong-armed sword is drawn to hew the way, it would be more logical and respectable to declare the laws silent than to attempt to justify unlawful actions by unwarranted legislation.  Why are these traitors of the Constitution not hung?  Let their effort be exposed in its true light to establish the supreme and unlimited sovereignty of the General Government.  All this by persons acting under authority of the United States Government, but in dis-regard of the Constitution that pro-vides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [and] the right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”  This is recorded in the fourth and fifth article of that Consti-tution that they have sworn to uphold.  Yet, these provisions are of no avail to protect the citizens of today from the outrages, because those who derive their authority from the Constitution use that authority to violate its guarantees.  Their effort to clothe the Government of the United States with absolute power in-volves the destruction of the rights of the people and the subversion of the Con-stitution.  Hence forward, if this cycle be completed, on every occasion, the pro-visions of the Constitution will afford no protection to the citizens: their rights will be illicitly spurned, their persons will be arbitrarily seized and imprisoned beyond the reach of family and friends; their houses shall be pilfered, sacked and burned.  If they plead the Constitution, the Government of the Constitution shall turn a deaf ear to them, unsheathe its bloodstained sword, and claim the wel-fare of that Government, be it local, state or national, is at stake; and the Con-stitution, which is the compact of this judicious union, must stand aside.  A constitutional government of limited power derived from the people is then transformed into a military or police dictatorship.  This is indeed a revolution! 
 The removal of rights, say for in-stance that of the people to bear arms, through confiscation in States where the United States Government had, under the Constitution, no authority to interfere with that right, is a problem which the usurpers have found it difficult legally or logically to solve, but these obstacles are less regarded than the practical difficulty where the Government had no physical power to enforce its edicts.  The highly limited powers granted in the Consti-tution to the Government of the United States are not at all applicable to such designs, or commensurate with their execution.  Now, let us see the little possibility there is for constitutional liberties and rights to survive, when entrusted to such unscrupulous hands. 
We see taking place right now before our very eyes, if we will but open those eyes and see, the matter of “property seizure” or “asset forfeiture,” as increasingly common law enforcement practice that is being used to destroy liberty, corrupt police, and grievously violate the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Within New Mexico alone, over the year of 1995, those of us who lived there at the time witnessed a “program” put into effect called Breath Analysis Testing or B.A.T.  We viewed these white signs with a horrid bat in flight upon them and the words: WARNING: CHECK POINTS EVERYWHERE.  We witnessed such things as the complete halting of all traffic for upwards of fifteen to thirty minutes and checking of driver’s license, registration, insurance papers, viewing inside of vehicles and even having the owners open these vehicles so the Nazi-dressed lawmen might look through all personal belongings.  This was all being done under the guise of looking for drunk drivers.
Now what the Hades does your suitcase, packed in the back of your van, have to do with whether or not you have been drinking?  What does it matter what your driver’s license reads when it comes to checking to see if someone has been drinking?  What difference does it matter if you have insurance or not when it comes to checking for drunk drivers?  American citizens who do not drink, who do not use drugs, who do not weave about upon the roads while driving their vehicles are stopped along with all the others.  No probable cause need be found to violate the rights of these citizens who are merely attempting to get to their destination on time. 
Worse still, few people are aware of the connection between this and the United Nations.  Fewer still understand this police-state practice came to the United States from the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 
Article 5, Section 2 of that document states:
“Each party shall also adopt such measures as may be necessary to enable it competent authorities to identify, trace, and freeze or seize proceeds, property, instrumentalities or any other things referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, for the purpose of eventual confiscation.”  It continues by adding that “in order to carry out the measure referred to in this article, each Party shall empower its courts or other competent authorities to order that bank, financial or commercial records are made available or seized.” 
In relation to the confiscation, or legal theft, of private property, such as the present and pending gun-control legislation, it may be that the whole matter has never been better stated than by the great American publicist, Mr. Wheaton, who said:  “Temples of religion, public edi-fices devoted to civil purposes only, monuments of art, repositories of science...and private property is also exempt from confiscation, with the ex-ception of such as may become...levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory.”    Do they consider us, who have devoted our entire lives in obedience to the laws of the land, to be “the inhabitants of a hostile territory?”  God forbid!  Rather than “the inhabitants of a hostile territory,” we are the ones who valiantly have fought, bled and, on several occasions, died during the more recent wars which they so brutally waged against both jungle and desert enemies, and against the threats toward our form of a free democracy.  We are the sons and daughters of our brave parents and courageous grandparents who did the same during the catastrophic World Wars One and Two.  We are the proud American descendants of those who gallantly fought in the Spanish-American War, the War for Southern Independence, the War of 1812 and the American Revolution.  We are the red, white and blue Americans.  We are not the “inhabitants of a hostile territory” who need to be restrained, regulated, controlled and guarded like infant chil-dren upon the playground of a kinder-garten school. 
John Quincy Adams, writing to the Secretary of State on August 22, 1815, added that “All private property...was entitled by the laws to exemption from capture.”    Former Secretary of State, William L. Marcy, in a letter he wrote to Count de Sartiges on July 28, 1856, stated: “The persons and effects of non-combatants are to be respected.  The wan-ton pillage or uncompensated appro-priation of individual property by an army [or police] even in possession of an enemy’s country is against the usage of modern times.  Such a proceeding at this day would be condemned by the enlight-ened judgment of the world.”  The illustrious Chief Justice John Marshall stated in the case of the United States verses Percheman that “the sense of jus-tice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated and pri-vate rights annulled.  The people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereignty is dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.” 
The present Government, elected by a minority of those capable of voting in our society,   has allowed no exemptions of private property, human or civil rights, but continues on an in-creasingly daily basis to confiscate all private property of every kind belonging to any person or persons they deem harmful to the advancement of their totalitarian regime.  The voice of anyone who objects is drowned in a sea of cen-sorship controlled by a State Department whose main objective is to cause the said Government to appear as though it represented the personal interests of the majority of adult citizens within the country.  This includes the right to bear arms and various other rights now on the verge of regulated extinction. Horror sto-ries abound of federal agents, acting under the guise of Government laws, legally stealing the personal property of citizens who are merely guilty of possessing one cigarette of marijuana within the automobile they are driving, or growing for their own personal usage one marijuana plant within the back yard of their private dwelling.  These automo-biles and dwellings are then seized, condemned as illegal contraband and sold with the moneys obtained going into the “kitty” so they might give away such trinkets to innocent school children as pencils or other items of propaganda.  These moneys are deposited within a fund to entreat these unsuspecting juvenile children in such a way as to entice them to report all activities of their parents to the authorities through such odious school sponsored programs as the hideous D. A. R. E. 
I draw your attention to merely one such action of Donald Scott, a rancher, who at age 61, lived near Malibu, California.  Scott was supposedly a heavy drinker and a man who simply refused to verbally lay down and play dead when it came to government agencies.  On October 2, 1993, over a dozen lawmen, including the National Park Service police, raided his home at Trail’s End Ranch.  Each was heavily armed with guns and a warrant to search for “50 marijuana” plants--a warrant obviously sparked by Scott’s earlier verbal assaults against National Park Service Supervisor David Gackenbach.  During the early morning hours, Scott and his wife were awakened from their sleep by loud knockings, shouting and general disturbances.  Having recently had eye surgery, fearing for his and his wife’s safety, Scott drew a weapon to defend his “rights.”  As these malicious, vindictive gun-slinging Federal agents approached Scott, they ordered him to put down his own gun and, as he was doing so, they opened fire upon him by shattering his chest with a barrage of lead.  No marijuana was ever found.  This and a multitude of other actions can be found in Timothy R. Walters excellently documented book on Surviving the Second Civil War. 
These actions are daily being taken without indictment, without trial by jury, without the proof of witnesses.  This decree to deprive us of our estate, real and personal, is being waged right this moment under the guise and ruse of declaring war upon drugs and crime.  It is not the citizen who merely maintains a weapon for the purpose of protecting his family and his property that is the criminal; but it is the present paranoid Administration official who supports, defends and perpetuates this hideous war by en-dorsing such measures as the recently passed Brady Bill of the Congress of the United States. Such a bill, or present law, is but a forerunner of a more das-tardly deed about to be perpetrated upon an unsuspecting peoples.  A deed of such diabolical cunning and brutal severity that no man, woman or child who be-lieves in the right to protect themselves from the illegal criminal activities shall any longer possess that right within their power. 
Under no circumstance can any of these legal criminals within the minority elected Government point to any area where crime has decreased due to the confiscation of the people’s right to bear arms.  On the contrary, history clearly in-di-cates that the people become sus-ceptible to the actual criminal when the citizen no longer possesses the right to defend their lives and their personal property by whatever means they deem important at the time of the criminal action.  Further still, history clearly re-veals that this action of legal con-fiscation is but the forerunner of a devious tyrannical mind who seeks to prevent the people from rising against him or her when the despots have finally raised their dictatorial flag over the land of the free and the home of the brave.  “It is the essence of democratic government,” writes historiographer Allan Nevins, “that a temporary majority shall not abuse its power, nor shall cardinal changes [such as the ownership of guns by private, law-abiding citizens] be forced in national policy except after full and free discussion, and by emphatic assent of the people.” 
Thus it is, without any hesitation or cowardice, that we the people of the states that are united, should and ought to, declare ourselves free and inde-pendent of any minority elected Gov-ernment which carries but only 43% of the popular vote.  No official ought to be placed into any office who cannot carry at least 50% of the popular vote.  “For this is a Government of the people.  Without their sustaining voice that Government falls,” stated the great emancipator John Brooks Henderson.  “By them it was made, by them alone can it be upheld.” 
“The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind an-other...is a question of such conse-quences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government,” the dis-tin-guished Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison on September 6, 1789. 
Thomas Jefferson went on to conclude in his letter to James Madison that “no such obligation [such as the binding of one man to the government] can be so transmitted.”  In other words, no one Government has a right to bind another if the other does not desire to be bound.  Nor can that Government, or any government, engage the people unless the people first resign themselves to that binding.  It is self-evident to all the world that this is the case in point and, that is, no Government is endowed by any Creator with certain unalienable rights--rather, only the people are endowed with these rights and those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  All men and women, regardless of socioeconomic or racial background, are capable of recognizing this truth and exercising the truth herein stated.  These rights are not granted by Governmental decree or favor--rather they are ours by Divine Right only. 
James Madison declared: “Government...is not a just government...nor is property secure under it, where property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” 
Let us ask this question.  Has the Government of the present day adopted Stephen A. Douglas’ philosophy when he spoke to a group of people in Chicago on October 23, 1850?  He stated that “the civilized world has always held that when any race of men have shown themselves so degraded by ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and barbarism as to be utterly incapable of governing themselves, they must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, by such laws as are deemed applicable to their condition.” 
Dare the present Administration think we are so degraded and ignorant of what they are doing to our human and civil rights because we have as yet not spoken up?  Dare they think we are a class of superstitious plebeians because we continue to cast our votes for leaders who do not represent us once elected?  Dare they assume we are cruel and barbaric because the court-paroled criminals roam the public streets of our cities seeking whom he or she may devour?  Dare these Socialist/Marxist Republicans and Democrats conclude that we are utterly incapable of governing ourselves when, if they would but mind their own business and not ours, which would prove a full time job for them, we would settle our own matters of domesticity?  Dare they determine that they are so superior, so highly intellectual, so dedicated to the sole interests of the people that only these Socialists are capable of governing us.  The “US” with certain unalienable rights granted by the governing document that they have sworn to uphold?  Think they that only their rulings are applicable to our condition?  God forbid such insolence upon their part if they do!  Are we not adult-minded individuals?  Are we not educated within the most massive communicative country in the world?
“The social problem of maintaining the just relation between constitution, government, and people, has been found so difficult, that human history is a record of unsuccessful efforts to establish it.  A government, to afford the needful protection and exercise proper care for the welfare of a people, must have homogeneity in its constituents.  It is this necessity which has divided the human race into separate nations, and finally has defeated the grandest efforts which conquerors have made to give unlimited extent to their domain.  When our Founding Fathers dissolved their connection with Great Britain, by declaring themselves free and independent States, they constituted thirteen separate communities, and were careful to assert and preserve, each for itself, its sovereignty and jurisdiction. 
“At a time when the minds of men [and women] are straying far from the lessons our forefathers taught, it seems proper and well to recur to the original principles on which the system of government they devised was founded.  The eternal truths that they announced, the right which they declared ‘unalien-able,’ are the foundations on which rests the vindication of the [Secessionist] cause...Can any historical fact be more demonstrable than that the States did ...consent to federation, but never become the fractional part of a nation?  In all free governments the constitution or organic law is supreme over the government, and in our Federal Union this was most distinctly marked by limitations and prohibitions against all which was beyond the expressed grants of power to the General Government. In the foreground, therefore,” the great statesman J. Davis continued,  “I take the position that those who resisted violations of the compact were the true friends, and those who maintained the usurpation of undelegated powers were the real enemies of the Constitutional Union.” 
“What country,” asked Thomas Jefferson, “can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them...The tree of liberty must be re-freshed from time to time...it is it’s natural manure.”   “An observation of this truth should render honest Republican [and Democrat] governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much.  It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”    “The way to have a good and safe government,” the patriot Thomas Jefferson further advises, “is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every-one exactly the functions he is competent to.” Division and subdivision, Jefferson clearly believed, “until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself.”  Then, he strongly felt, “is the mechanism by which political freedom is guaranteed.” 
These usurpation’s of the Government, of which I refer, are presented, not in the spirit of hostility, nor in the spirit of support for any citizen who commits wrong-doing, nor in the spirit of seeking to destroy that which is good and can be better, but in the spirit of a warning to the people against the dangers by which their liberties are beset.  It is time to awaken from our apathetic state of being and recognize that we still have a choice.  Our greatest weapon is our right to choose.  We, the people, are the creators of the Government--not the creatures.  Let us not resort to become like that thing that we seek to disassociate ourselves with; but rather, let us look long and hard at the facts of our daily lives and realize that we are no longer going to tolerate being products of the Socialistic State.  For the State was created for and by the people and the people were not created for and by the State.  With this we are capable of ridding ourselves of that tyrannical ruling Socialist body which has for so long now, like Jonah’s whale, swallowed us deeper and deeper into the pit of its despotic bowels. 
“The Constitution was made for the benefit of every citizen, and there is no citizen who has not a right to its protection,” John Brooks Henderson, author of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution proclaimed in a speech to the American people.