Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Bruce Hedrick
34 followers -
The truth is there to be known, but only to those with eyes prepared to see and ears prepared to hear..
The truth is there to be known, but only to those with eyes prepared to see and ears prepared to hear..

34 followers
About
Posts


Fighting the Empire IS promoting our Republic!
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 7:27pm
 In my own mind and soul I firmly believe liberty in America is directly tied to the health of our republic, and it is the secularist/humanist quality in the socialist statist (liberal) agenda that is killing the Republic.  For all progressives –Republican NEOCON and Democrat-- the American Empire helps promote their agenda.
As a general rule, Republicans see themselves as saviors of the world, doing so by preceding business with international military action; Democrats see themselves as humanitarians to all the world, equally. Both sides use military might to fulfill their own special agenda: Republicans need a robust domestic economy to fund the military machine, and Democrats see domestic statutes as a way to propagate (and advance) control from the domestic base.  This is the oddest of unions, but a union nevertheless; both are killing our Republic.
Man's humanitarianism is no substitute for the mores extrapolated from "Nature and Nature's God."
Be not deceived- Bruce Fein is a patriotic conservative Republican who will brilliantly bring to you this very argument, in his book, "American Empire; Before The Fall."  Check out this video:
CPAC 2011: Bruce Fein - American Empire: Before the Fall Pt.3 
Fein's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein
AND, you must read his book!
http://www.amazon.com/American-Empire-Before-Fall-Bruce/dp/1452829535
Add a comment...


UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFECTS OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, ON US: \\\
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 10:54pm
For our republic to re-dominate the democratic process, private acting must precede public action; preemptive public action squalors man’s ability to self-govern, empowers government’s want to plunder, and emboldens reckless behavior for both: citizens within the republic, and its leadership in the democratic process.
 
“The Founding Fathers understood that what distinguished man from animal was the capacity for self-government based on principles of due-process, freedom of speech, and (acknowledged) equality under the law.  They provided the leadership that inspired a republican political culture** vastly superior to what ordinary citizens would achieve if left leaderless.  The Republic’s culture taught that the anointment of “We The People” as sovereign, with all its errors and stumbles, was preferable to comfortable vassalage under infallible plutonic guardians; that modesty and non-belligerence were superior to domination or conquest; that thinking should precede acting; and that liberty, due process, and justice are hallmarks of national greatness.  Indeed, James Madison sermonized in Federalist 51: ‘Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.’   And John Stewart Mills lectured in the Spirit of the Constitution, ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question, (existing without empathy or foresight).’ “*
 
Authorization for preemptive action, whether it be a traffic ticket or international military exploitation, destroys the precepts of self-government and nullifies the critical concept of individual rights (statehood).
 
”The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from Liberty to force …  She might become the dictatress of the world, (but) she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”**
 
Today, we are filled with false hope; security over liberty, immediate financial gain over tomorrow’s economic viability.  We live as satisfied pigs, shameless in our apathetic carelessness for what becomes of our children’s tomorrow.  Reagan’s “Shining City on the Hill” is no longer a beacon of Hope, nor a purveyor of “inextinguishable rights of human nature." (ibid)
 
NOTES:
** “Inspired a republican political culture:”  A concept promoting educated people are able to, and willing to, self-govern with humility and shame, and confidence; absent from public pronouncement since President Reagan.
***Bruce Fein, “AMERICAN EMPIRE; BEFORE THE FALL,” (2010), p.76 (Highly recommended reading)
****John Adams Address, July 4, 1821
 
As long as our Empire rages, progressivsim shall live and thrive at the expense of individual and state rights: without these two, there is no sovereignty among the people.
Add a comment...


Democracy is not a form of government, but a longing to be governed----------
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 6:12am
Transitory in nature, the evolution in democracy confers
time for contemplation and action before the next natural evolutionary phase
into total dependence and Totalitarianism; time is almost up:
 
"From bondage to spiritual faith;
 
from spiritual faith to great courage;
 
from courage to liberty;
 
from liberty to abundance;
 
from abundance to selfishness;
 
from selfishness to apathy;
 
from apathy to dependence;
 
from dependency back again into bondage."
What level do you think America is at now?
Add a comment...

REPUBLIC VS DEMOCRACY: A piece from my book
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at 4:48am
The following is a part of a chapter out of my book "Defensible Position"(1996). If you are looking for some information to create your own article feel free to use anything below.  I also have an excellent chapter on the Habeas Corpus which fits in nicely with sovereignty.  Basically, for the people to be subjected to things like from the IRS to the Harbor Code, a form of suspension of the Habeas Corpus has been hanging over us all along in the form of a bill of attainder (If you don’t understand, learn it! You cannot defend liberty if you don’t understand it.)
 
This version is unedited.
 
 
REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY
It seems every time we turn around either Congress, State legislature’s or even local citizens are running down to vote away our rights. Well, there is something you must know, no matter how many laws you try to pass you cannot regulate one’s personal life. 
 
The voting process is an example of democracy in action.  This vote is one that effects GOVERNMENT and NOT one that affects private persons.  Our rights are safeguarded against a majority vote because of their ancillary relationship to the common law and our inalienability!
 
The 9th Circuit concluded that school authorities cannot delegate control over or responsibility for graduation to the senior class because "public officials cannot avoid constitutional mandates by putting them to a majority vote. One’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no election."
 
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 stated:
 
"It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in Engle v. Vitale, ‘The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.’ "  Clearly to the informed (such as you by now) this Engle v Vitale Court statement is one in reference to the sovereignty on man, one from another.
 
 
 
"It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
 
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 54950
:
 
"THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES WHICH SERVE THEM.  THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW."
 
"In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state… where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both… In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
 
Glass v. The Sloop betsy 3 Dall 6.
 
"People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."
 
Lansing v. Smith 4 Wend 9, 20
 
Sovereignty: "Having supreme rank, power and authority… Supreme and independent power...indisputable...being above all others...having dominion, power, authority...rightful status of independence and prerogative...greatest in degree." Webster’s Dictionary
 
 
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property."
 
Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Sec 1
 
  
Notice that you have inalienable rights and not Constitutional rights. A government employee has Constitutional rights and answers to the people, as a sovereign you only answer to Common Law.
  A form of law traceable to the 10 Commandments:
 
 
 
James Madison
:  "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future… upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."
 
Daniel Webster said
:  "If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country              will go on prospering."
 
John Adams:  "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is   wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
 
Benjamin Franklin:  "Man will ultimately be governed by GOD or by tyrants."
 
Which is it that governs America today?
 
Andrew Jackson:  "The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests."
 
Why did America become the greatest nation in history? It is very obvious by studying our Founding Fathers intentions in The Declaration of Independence. And If one wanted to destroy a nation like America, would he not look to what the Founders said was the cornerstone (Laws of God) upon which our Republic was built, and then ATTACK THAT VERY FOUNDATION?
 
Now stop and think just how hard your government is trying to make it illegal to pray in schools, put Christmas decoration in public places, they have tried to ban NFL players from saying a prayer when they  run in a touch down.  One of the latest pieces of evidence of this secularism can be found right here in California- The schools here in California can no longer call Christmas vacation a Christmas vacation; it is now referred to as the winter break.
 
United States Supreme Court 1973, in the case of Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp, 475 F. 2d 29 stated:
 
"
But this creed does not include any element of coercion concerning these beliefs unless one considers it coercive to look upon the Ten Commandments. Although they are in plain view, no one is required to read or recite them.
 
It does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument, involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era."
 
Do you honestly think that citizens of a country could live by the Ten Commandments alone? Yes, and that has already been proven, this country existed for over 150 year under Common Law. Since the perversion of the Constitution which seemed to have started around the 1900’s, we have almost been in anarchy ever since. Now I hope that I am not sounding all too radical here by saying you cannot regulate me, BUT, as you read through this book you will find that the only time I have to answer to anyone in this country is when I injure a person or property.
 
 
 
" You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
        -John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
  
 
 
" .. .  While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, SOVEREIGNTY ITSELF remains with THE PEOPLE, by whom and for whom, all government exists and acts."
  
Yick Wo v Hopkins & Woo Lee v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
  
 
 
"Under our system (in America) the people, who are there (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign… Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here (in America) knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered..."
 
 
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196
  
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."
 
 
Lansing v. Smith 21 1. 89
  
United States Supreme Court, in reference to the individual’s God-given rights, stated:
 
 
These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement -"that all men are endowed" -not by edicts of emperors or decrees of parliament, or acts of Congress, but "by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure them"governments are instituted among men."
 
Now after reading these powerful cases and quotes, can you imagine the King being told how to live his life by one of his own servants. Or more directly, being told that he needs a building permit, fishing license, fire permit, drivers license, registration, hunting permit, "Wear your seat belt or else!," I hope you get the picture. Under a Republic, the government does not rule the people that created it, only the persons (offices) it
 
Sovereign vs Person
 
"The word game"
 
This section will explain the word game that the government has betrayed us with by taking words that you and I believe to mean one thing and making them mean something else. Remember, all of our law books are Code books. All we are doing right now is decoding them, and the IRS doesn’t like what we are discovering.
 
 
-The People vs Herkimer 15 Am Dec 379
 
.
 
"The People, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King nor the People."
 
-Wills vs. Michigan State Police 105 L.Ed. 2d 45.
   
"The sovereign, cannot be named in any statute as merely a "person", or "any person" .And they go on to say, "The sovereign must be named specifically."
 
-United States vs. Fox 94 U.S. 315.
 
"Since in common usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
 
-United States vs. Copper Corp 318 U.S. 600.
"The precise question for a decision is whether by the use of the phrase "any person," Congress intended to confer upon the United States the right to maintain an action for treble damages against a violator of the (IRS) Act.
 
 
 
-United States Code Section 7203.
Willful failure to File Return, Supply Information, or pay tax.
 
"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax...."
 
Do you know that many American’s have been put in jail because the court has been allowed to use a broad use to the phrase any person. Even worse, any Court that has ever prosecuted a Sovereign under the phrase any person should be brought up on charges of treason. This is clear violation of our Republic.  You see, only in a full blown Democracy can a congress dictate to all the citizen what they can and cannot do. But in a Republic we are the Kings. 
 
I was brought up to think that working for someone made me an employee, or owning my own business and hiring someone made me an employer. WRONG!
 
Federal Income Tax is exactly what it says, a tax on "FEDERAL" income! Remember the breakdown of the name Internal Revenue Code. We are dealing with government jobs which are privileged jobs, and if it were not for the Sovereigns there would be no Federal jobs.
 
Here are more sections out of the Internal Revenue Code book, dealing with only what Government created and not dealing with the Sovereigns!
 
USCS TITLE 26 Section 3401
:
 
"EMPLOYEE  .For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘employee’ includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ‘employee’ also includes an officer of a corporation."
 
Did God create corporations? No, Government did .  To be an "EMPLOYEE", you have to work for the Government, or be an officer of a corporation, which as you will soon find out does not mean any State corporation.
 
 
 
Title 26
Section. 7343
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee
 
of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such
 
officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect
 
of which the violation occurs.
 
 
 
Title 26 Section 7701 (a)(3):
 
"CORPORATION  .The term ‘corporation’ includes associations, joint stock companies, and insurance companies."
 
Any and all of the statutes outside our state penal codes, only deal with what government creates. Now I know what you are saying, there are a lot of codes out there, and that’s right.  We need to regulate all of our public offices mostly for liability purposes. Relevance- if it isn’t in our penal codes then it doesn’t apply to you.
 
Title 29 Labor Code, Section 53.
 
"The word "person" or "persons" wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations ecisting under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State. or the laws of any foreign country."
 
Who creates corporations? Congress and the State legislatures do.  Remember what I said before that the government can only control what it creates!.
 
TITLE 26 Section 7701(a)(4):
 
"DOMESTIC  .The term ‘domestic’ when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or any State."
 
We already know what the definition of "STATE" means "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" so it does not mean the 50 States.
 
TITLE 26 Section 7701(a)(5):
 
"FOREIGN. The term ‘foreign’ when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic."
 
Can you believe that? Your corporation, which was incorporated by your State, is FOREIGN to the "United States", which means it is not subject to Federal jurisdiction!. I’ll bet your accountant never shared that secret with you.
 
Here is a great section that tells all.
 
TITLE 26 Section 7701(a)(26):
 
"TRADE OR BUSINESS. The term ‘trade or business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office".
 
WOW! This section goes right back to our chapter on "Internal Revenue Service," and "IRS has no power to seize"’ which states the Government can only control what it creates and therefore IRS ONLY HAS POWER TO SEIZE THAT WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROL!!!
 
Now I know this book is supposed to be dealing with taxes, but I think it is important that you understand just how much power you have as one of the owner’s of this once great country.
 
The following case is dealing with the subject of how government can and can’t regulate your business (private life) affairs. It actually goes very deep into the issue of how you loose some of your Sovereign rights and become subject to legislative law, the actual proper and legal term for today would be private v. person.
 
 
 
Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition.
 
Private, defined;
 
Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from public generally. Not official; not clothed with office.
 
 
 
How does your business become effected with a public interest?  Wolf Packing Co. vs. Court of Ind. Relations 262 U.S. 522, the court made the following classification of businesses affected with a public interest:
 
(1) Those carried on under the authority of a public grant of privilege (such as a franchise), which expressly or impliedly imposes the duty of service to members of the public generally; common carriers and public utilities.
 
(2) "Businesses which though not public at their inception may be fairly said to have risen to be such, and have become subject in consequence to some government regulation".
 
Under this restricted theory, price control and similar regulations were held improper where, despite proof of evils, the business was deemed private. See Tyson v. Banton 273 U.S. 418, 71 L.ED. 718.
 
 
LABOR vs INCOME
By now there should be no doubt that in this Country you have inalienable rights secured by the Constitution. So do you think our government has the right to tax what you make?. NO.
 
-Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.  111 U.S. 746.
"As in our intercourse with our fellow men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people; "We hold these truths to be self evident," that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement, "that all men are endowed," not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but, "by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime, "and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these," not grant them but secure them, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed."
 
Lets go a little deeper into the intent of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Butcher’s supra, at 757:
 
"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give their highest enjoyment."
 
"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous upon themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, condition, is a distinguished privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright."
 
"It has been well said that, "The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property."
 
Do you think there might still be a court today that believes this is a free country, and you have the right to engage in free trade without government regulation? Yes.
 
Appellant Christopher A. Priddy was convicted July 13, 1993, in the municipal Court of the City of Tulsa, Case No 9464157, of No license to Engage in Business as a Sign Contractor Municipal Judge William J. Hiddle fined Priddy $300.00 plus cost. Priddy appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State v Oklahoma, pro se. Priddy v. The City of Tulsa, No.M 93-1263 (Oklahoma, September 26, 1994).
 
The highest court for criminal appeals agreed with Priddy that the City Ordinance under which he was convicted, Sections 2906.1 of Title 51, as it applies to sign painters, is unconstitutional. Further, the Court found Section 201.0 as it applies to sign painters is unconstitutional.
 
The City of Tulsa has the power to enact and enforce ordinances to protect the public peace, order, health, morals and safety of its inhabitants. However, to sustain encroachment on an individual’s liberty, there must be an obvious and real connection between the ordinance and its purpose to protect the public welfare and this purpose can be served in no less restrictive means. Cryan v. State, 583 P.2d 1122.
 
In State v. Wiggenjost, 265 N.W. 422, the Supreme Court of Nebraska found the license feature of a sign ordinance, which was required in addition to a permit, not enforceable. "We agree with the Nebraska Supreme Court that the right to acquire the means of supporting life by honest labor and skill is an inherent right of a law-abiding citizen. Further, we agree that the vocation of painting signs does not imply any sinister influence on the public calling for municipal surveillance in the form of a license."
 
I hear freedom ringing once again. I hope you see just how important that case was. First, it was won by a man who stood before the court WITHOUT an attorney. Second, the court ruled that WE have the right to engage in free trade without government regulation.
 
Does the trade of a contractor, plumber, sign painter, automotive repairman, or any other trade fit the description of something that could be regulated by the state or federal government? No, but our misinformed representatives sure think so. Day after day they continually sit around in our public offices and try to regulate our lives.
 
 
 
So now back to labor- does the government have the right to tax it? No.
 
The Antelope 23 US 66. Court stated, "...every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, as generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will..."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847.
‘Income’, as used in the statute should not be given the meaning so as to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words "gain" and "profit" is to limit the meaning of the word "income"…
 
-Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. 240 U.S 1, 17.
" Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporate excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The individual worker does not receive a profit or gain for his/her labors - merely an equal exchange of funds for services. "
 
Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1.
 
"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."
 
Remember government can only regulate that which is expressed in the Constitution!
 
Eisner v Macomber states:
 
"It becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income". .Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution form which alone it derives its power to legislate and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised."
 
Merchant Loan & Trust v. Smietkana states:
 
"… there would seem to be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress, that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is, now become definitely settled by this court."
 
Edwards v. Deith 231 F. 110. states:
 
"The statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income derived from many different specified sources; one does not "derive" income by rendering services and charging for them"  .
 
There are over 85 different subject matter taxes in the IRC Code book, none of which name the Sovereign as subject thereto!  Why?  We The People, when creating the Constitution which created a limited form of government, have protected our Right to labor under that part of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
 
Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S 435 U.S. 31.
"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATION: Only When It favors the Progressive Agenda
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Monday, December 19, 2011 at 2:21pm
Liberals hated the original setup of the U.S. Senate, thus, the 17th Amendment, in an attempt (now successful) at softening republicanism and giving socialism a legal foothold. 
 
However, they only want the more “democratic” approach when it meets their needs. 
 
Our system works in a system of multi-layered bureaucracy: districts, city municipality, counties, states, and the venerable federal (now national) government. And in each of those groupings we can see similarities. 
 
The several states were meant to have two forms of representation: one for the people by district, and the other to be an equalized state representation so that the big states could not bully the smaller ones (this maintained state sovereignty before the 17th Amendment).
 
But liberals hated the idea of state representation and wanted a more direct democracy. More to the point, not all Democrats are liberals (just like not all Republicans are conservative). But alos included in the liberal Democrat ranks are thoroughbreed socislists; they have an agenda to kill American Exceptionalism, and they are suing the naivete of bleeding hearts as cover for a very sinisiter plot. For them, I do not waste my time, for arguing with idiots is a fool's desire.     
 
 "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead," --Thomas Paine
 
Notwithstanding, there’s some inconsistency at the local level now showing up in the news in Escondido (what a surprise!): 
 
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/dec/14/escondido-ready-fight-voting-rights-suit/ 
Add a comment...


CONSTRAINED VS UNCONSTRAINED VISIONS, AND THE 17TH AMENDMENT
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Friday, June 29, 2012 at 11:38pm
          I'm hearing all the talking heads on both sides spinning this decision, and all of them are dumbfounded over Roberts. Even Charles Krauthammer says Roberts is just playing politics, ruling as he did to save the Court's prestige.
 
Wrong answer Charles. 
 
The stark variations between pre and post 17th Amendment can be found in their interpretive conflicts of political visions. Further, modern liberal models of government (and political) application invariably denies the existence of our separate bubbles of authority: our republic, in which “Nature and Nature’s God” rules; and our man-made democratic process, created and defined by our Constitution.  
 
Socialized democracy demands the unconstrained vision, freeing up government to act as not only the Constrainer, but as the provider of life and its “granted privileges.” The constrained vision of government is burdened with baggage, such as equal parts individual accountability and responsibility- effective liberalism demands the marriage of accountability and responsibility to be torn asunder to be metered by the will and Law of Man, which stands in stark contrast to the republican Rule of Law.
 
Our Constitution came to life under the constrained vision of government, and included all kinds of details to make it just that- constrained. But since that time, we have pulled and pushed and kneaded and thinned and weakened and broadened and narrowed the spectrum of original intent-- turning a great document inside out, exposing its guts to the heat of political shenanigans. 
 
And now, by way of some well targeted activist rulings AND THE 17TH AMENDMENT, we have swapped the constrained vision for the unconstrained vision. 
 
We are failing in this experiment of self-government. And if I may humbly add, certain failure was built into our governing document when states were no longer allowed to have their equal say to counter today's nationalism.
 
Roberts’ ruling on the Affordability Health Care Tax Act was in line with modern (unconstrained) conservative progressivism: conservative domestically (wants to keep the Commerce Clause in check), wishes to maintain a healthy American Empire, and dampens his overall view in light of a "softened" touchy-feely republicanism- i.e. pro 17th Amendment entitlement mentality. His ruling was very predictable.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

THIS ONE LITTLE SECRET IS ALL THAT CAN SAVE LIBERTY: \
by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Monday, July 2, 2012 at 3:20pm
Am I alone in my cry for repealing the 17th Amendment? Absolutely not! But the MSM has control on the strength and frequency of how much of this info we receive:   
 
Speaker Gingrich mentioned the need to return to states rights: 
"But Americans should not have to accept a defeatist attitude from Washington: There is every reason to believe a comprehensive program of economic growth, government modernization, returning power to the citizens and states and dramatically expanding American energy production can lead to a balanced budget far faster than experts now predict."
see: http://newtgingrich360.com/balanced-budget?xg_source=activity 
 
And Gov Perry was even more direct.  He did an interview in which he expressed concern over states rights and the 16/17th Amendments:
 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/241830/top-10-thing-texas-gov-rick-perry/?mobile=nc 
 
My guess is that after this interview his handlers advised him to shut up about the 17th Amendment. It is political suicide to suggest its removal because it comes in the grouping of the 14th - 17th Amendments- a series of "fixes" for the alleged savagery of republicanism which is perceived as the workings of slavery.   
 
Don’t let fear and ignorance keep you from speaking and doing the Truth. Our only way out of this liberal mess is to repeal the 17th Amendment.  
 
Only when this becomes a best seller will there be signs of recovery:     http://www.amazon.com/Federalism-Supreme-Court-Seventeenth-Amendment/dp/0739102869 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

by Bruce Allen Hedrick (Notes) on Friday, July 20, 2012 at 2:53am
The softening of republicanized federalism caused by the 17th Amendment has brought us to what we have today. Yes, still many of the precepts of liberty can be found and enjoyed here. But what is left today is the bits and pieces from our former greatness.
 
We once stood on the shoulders of greatness, but now we whither clinging to her knees.
 
All political struggles boil down to one thing: property- property and the strength of ownership. America found the most perfected way to define, control, and disseminate that which is naturally held as inalienable rights, and in so doing through enumeration, America found greatness and the world stood in awe. 
 
But today, the progressiveness founded in the 14 - 17th Amendments has come to its full fruition; the bastardized concepts mixed within our foundation have brought us full circle, back to the ravages of European elitist egalitarianism in which Lords and Governors decide the level of ownership.
 
We’ve become lazy and fat and complacent –spoiled to the core-- forgetting that liberty is rooted in self-government, strong property rights, and a moral code that equalizes the marriage of accountability and responsibility. We’ve forgotten that Liberty is not merely a desire, but a goal that demands constant vigilance.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded