Pledge of Allegiance

It took me 30 seconds to determine that Texas State Rep. Molly White was absolutely correct in her request that Muslims, and I may add any group not born in the US, pledge their Allegiance the the US and to Texas (PERIOD)!

The flack that Rep. White is getting is from those that either have no Allegiance to the US Constitution or the Texas State Constitution or they are ignorant of the Oath of Citizenship or worse, they are subversives working to undermine the that which our Founders demanded of any person emigrating to this Country.

There has been a lot written on ‘naturalizing foreigners’ from our Founders perspective so I’ll keep it short and simple with this:

Alexander Hamilton, a contributor to the Federalist Papers and who I often criticize got this one correct when he wrote concerning naturalization of immigrants:
“Part of what makes a community a community is its expectation of cultural continuity over time. That continuity is achieved by the acculturation of new members, whether they enter at birth or at later ages. The same is true, if to a more limited extent, of the “imagined community” that is a nation. Acculturation of the native-born is taken for granted; assimilation of immigrants is less assured. Immigration is typically tolerated, and sometimes welcomed, by the recipient population provided that the numbers of entrants and their pace of assimilation do not seriously challenge existing perceptions of national identity. Present-day immigration in some European countries many see as posing a challenge in this sense, prefiguring, in one appraisal, a cultural transformation amounting to a third demographic transition. Even in the United States, which often calls itself a nation of immigrants (I have to mention here that Hamilton was an immigrant), a comparatively liberal entry policy encounters populist resistance. “Naturalization” — acquisition of formal citizenship, and hence suffrage (meaning voting) — is a further step along, conditioned on a prescribed period of residence and some minimal knowledge of the Constitution.
“These issues are perennial ones, dating back, in the United States, to the earliest years of the republic. Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, written in 1781/82, cautioned against “great importations of foreigners” — carrying with them, he feared, their monarchist views. For population growth he preferred reliance on the country’s then very high rate of natural increase.”

Tim Woods in Human Events writes, “Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

This takes me to the fact that most don’t understand what the Oath of Citizenship says!
Here it is:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

With this all that want to be US Citizens all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

1. Support the Constitution;
2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

So what’s the beef here?  Well anyone who has any perspective of Sharia knows that it is a theocratic form of government that demands absolute allegiance.  So the trouble here is, that if anyone, Muslim, Mexican or anyone, wants to be a US Citizen they must go through the process and swear allegiance to the Constitution and the US renouncing all other attachments to other governments.

I fully support Rep. White wanting to know if she was dealing with a foreigner or a citizen since each should be treated differently since one is a foreign visitor and the other is a constituent.

Here is an example of a “Lesser Magistrate” doing the correct action.

Radio Program Now Has Two Time Slots

We just received fantastic news for the Radio Program “Samuel Adams Returns – The Anti-federalists Got It Right” hosted at Liberty Works Radio Network.  We now have Two Time Slots every Saturday – 9 AM Eastern and 7 PM Eastern.
Join me this Saturday On “Samuel Adams Returns – The Anti-federalists Got It Right”  –  Discussing  –  The 114th Congress:  What is it?
– at 9 AM Eastern and again at 7 PM Eastern adjust the time according to your time zone.

Listen on www.lwrn.net to understand from a participant in the 1787 Convention why the 114th Congress will be what it is and that in fact, you are not represented as the then proposed Constitution expected that you would be.

With that, think of all that our Founders reacted against in respect to the English Parliament and in reality, we have it all with us again – including: legislative and bureaucratic tyranny, executive despotism and judicial tyranny too! All managed by the international banking and business interests.

Listen to the program and Hear what Robert Yates predicted about the House of Representatives.

Why Do You Believe What You Do?

TODAY At 7 PM eastern on www.libertyworksradionetwork.com
A look at what influenced the core beliefs of Samuel Adams and many of the Anti-federalist. What was influential in their understanding of the Reformations impact on political thinking that gave then the perspective on Federalism and Constitutionalism?
We have this great mix of what individuals think the American Dream is or should be. We have a confusion in our political thought as to what Liberty is. Many act or react on what I have called over the last decade ‘the American DNA’ but no one has really done the genetic research. Those that claim they have are influence by the ism and post-foundational revisionist historical truths.

Today on Samuel Adams Returns – The Anti-federalists Got It Right I take us back to the roots of that which our Founders studied, better yet, what their ancestors, those that landed in the 1600’s were intimate with.

Radio Program Archives Up

The Radio Program “Samuel Adams Returns – The Anti-federalists Got It Right” Archives are now up and available at Radio Program Archives.
Enjoy these previous programs and add Saturday at 7 PM to your informative listening schedule.

We Forgot the "Just War" Theory of our Founders & Our Faith

This is an excellent article in its fundamental discussion and the perspective of ‘just war’ beliefs that our Founder had. “Just War” theory actually came from the Reformation Biblical world view and was obviated by the globalist and pseudo marxist that emerged in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.  Our loss of Citizens moral check on the elected came with the great expansion of American population growth in the mid-1800’s and the travesty of the results of the Amendments after the Civil War.  Oh there is so much more and then there is the UN and the destruction of our heritage and education of our people by humanist/socialist John Dewey followed by the pressures of UNESCO to indoctrinate students into global citizens.
I do agree with the view of the articles author that our military is no longer a place to be. As many of us that served, we saw much that was questionable and only if we took time to study our Founders Principles and history did we understand that the globalist have been attacking the foundations of the nation from its inception and more so at the turn to the 20th century. 100 years of planning and sedition is culminating toward the final objective unless We The People take action in the Principles of our Founding Fathers!

Read this great article: IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, LIBYA: DID ANYONE EXPECT A DIFFERENT OUTCOME?

Article V & Convention of States – Confusion

For a long time there has been conversations and arguments regarding what Article V is about, how to use it and what does it mean.  Many in the so called ‘conservative’ ranks operate on fear relative to the progressive/communist taking possession of Congress, the Presidency, Courts and even into the States and local offices.  Fear is a good thing and does allow for caution but, fear without full knowledge, understanding and strategy leave one paralyzed to act.
I was asked to join the fray of those discussing this issue.  Everyone goes to the so called experts.  One of the major problems in our nation is that we look to academia, politicians, lawyers and think-tanks as the experts.  That is NOT what the Founders intended.  They expected that each Citizen, that means you, would be the expert in self-governance and our Constitutional form of federalism.
So I’m going to let you listen for yourselves what this one Citizen has figured out.  I preface these video’s with me being a Citizen Circa 1774 to 1804, meaning:

  1. I can read
  2. I understood the events of the Revolution
  3. I known that even most enterprise, craftsmen, business people understood common law and the English system of law & justice
  4. Knew that states had more than one convention for various purposes
  5. Understood my state Constitution and how it was formed
  6. Had a good sense about the Articles of Confederation
  7. Read the Federalist arguments in the news Papers
  8. Read the Contrary – Anti-Federalist Article in the news papers
  9. Understood the reporting of my states “Ratifying Convention”
  10. Paid attention what was happening in the first Congresses
  11. Active in local as well as national issues

The Article V Confusion:
Part 1 – Introduction, Opinions and some history of Conventions in America:  http://youtu.be/YjRYofQVIu4
Part 2 – The Compact for America – described as the properly outlined and historically correct Template for the Amendment process as called by the State: http://youtu.be/xMw_vDOiQNc
Part 3 – Action Items – What we must do!  http://youtu.be/5A-7Mg5FQUc
The challenge is to Be a Citizen as our Founders Intended us to be.  I heard Trevor Loudon last saying again that we are the last hope of the world for any idea of Liberty.  Knowing our historical truths are critical to restoring our Republic.
Be engaged with your feet on the street to inform your neighbor or we shall have the 100 year plan of progressive communism thrust upon us in full force.  I was reminded that when ‘original Massachusetts Bay Charter’ was revoked and James II sent a governor (Sir Edmond Andors) to Boston, He was met by an Armed Citizenry that escorted him to prison where he remained for over ten months.  The point being that the Citizens did not put up with tyranny.  But today, we have been made so stupid regarding our Rights and Liberties that we have allowed all that our ancestors fought and died for slip into the hand of the evils they wrote, talked and preached against.
God Help us to restore Liberty that is in Him first!

John DeWitt No. II – Decision Time & Considerations

“John DeWitt” II
The author that used the pseudonym of John DeWitt is unknown.  As the writer challenges the Citizenry to take a hard look at this un-amended constitution.  What would be the perils to the individual and the States that were minimized by a well-constructed State Constitution with Bills of Rights?
The Key Points in this article are:
1.  A PERPETUAL form of government
2.  Difficult to change
3.  Chances of poor administration
4.  Changes opposed by those who benefit most of the power
5.  NO Bill of Rights
6.  Defines a Compact
7.  Those in power through tacit implication would subsume all rights of the people
“John DeWitt” II
Massachusetts, October 27, 1787
Continue reading

Potential of Judicial Tyranny Exposed

Again we have Yates, a scholarly judge, continuing his discourse regarding Article III of the 1787 Constitution.  He picks up from his last delivering a one, two – three punch to the way the judiciary can become despotic and tyrannize the Citizenry:

  1. How it will tend to extend the legislative authority.
  2. In what manner it will increase the jurisdiction of the courts.
  3. The way in which it will diminish, and destroy, both the legislative and judicial authority of the United States.

Talk about being able to see into the 20th and 21st centuries!  Yates knew that the judiciary would be the undoing of any national government, the states in particular and enslaving the Citizenry in the end.  He states below: “The courts, therefore, will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation, as will give latitude to every department under it, to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts.”
Study this predictive article to see that the Anti-Federalist got it right!
And wait until Brutus XIII is expounded on…… Whoa to us for not heading the warnings of the Anti-Federalist.  We live the horrors they foresaw!
(Emphasis added to capture your thoughts)
Continuing for Liberty,
Tom Niewulis
Brutus XII
7 February 1788
Continue reading

Will the National Judiciary Trump the Other Two Branches?

Brutus predicted the present dysfunctionality of the Supreme Court in this letter. 

In actuality, Brutus is Robert Yates.  Yates was one of the leading Anti-Federalist and in 1790 he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the N.Y. Supreme Court.  “From the beginning of the struggle for independence, although he did not sign the Albany Sons of Liberty constitution of 1766, he was prominent in the local resistance to the Stamp Act. By 1774, he had joined the Albany Committee of Correspondence and stood among its first members when the committee’s activities became public in 1775… In 1775, Yates was elected to represent Albany in each of the four New York Provincial Congresses. … In 1776-77, he served on the committee that drafted the first New York State Constitution and also was a member of the “Secret Committee for Obstructing Navigation of the Hudson.”  In October 1777, Yates was appointed to the New York State Supreme Court.

“Yates was appointed with John Lansing, Jr. and Alexander Hamilton to represent New York at the Philadelphia convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. Arriving in Philadelphia, Yates and Lansing felt the mood of the convention to produce an entirely new form of government was beyond their authority. After sending a letter to Governor Clinton urging opposition to the new Constitution, they returned home. His personal notes from the Philadelphia convention were published in 1821.”[i]

In every sense, understanding the context of Article III would be right up Yates area of expertise.  The key elements that Yates addressed and predicted regarding the federal Supreme Court are:

1.   Extend legislative authority.

2.   Increase jurisdiction of the courts.

3.   Diminish and destroy both the legislative and judiciary powers of the states.

Yates foresaw judicial tyranny and despotism.  He writes below that the system:

1.   “…authorize(s) the courts, not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions.”

2.    “…that they will operate to a total subversion of the state judiciaries, if not, to the legislative authority of the states”

3.   “…the courts are to give such meaning to the constitution as comports (def. – behaves) best with the common, and generally received acceptation of the words in which it is expressed, regarding their ordinary and popular use, rather than their grammatical propriety.”

4.   “And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law…”

5.   “The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states.”

6.   “the same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority…”

7.   “…they will have precedent to plead, to justify them in it. It is well known, that the courts in England, have by their own authority, extended their jurisdiction far beyond the limits set them in their original institution, and by the laws of the land.”

As you can see, Yates has predicted that which we have experienced since the late 19th century and worsened in the 20th century. Judicial tyranny has always been a part and possibility of the Constitution of 1787 and although there were these types of warnings; not a single amendment was accepted at that time to put more restrictions on the judiciary.

(all emphasis added to bring your attention to these factors)

Commentary by: Tom Niewulis

Brutus XI

 

31 January 1788

  Continue reading