Well, well, what have we here? ...

"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort."

- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason. [The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]

This should help the USurpremes in the upcoming D.C. case:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

There are THREE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY U.S. Supreme Court cases in which the Federalist Papers are referenced, quoted or mentioned. Many times these quotes have been made by the Chief Justices of the Court. More pertinent U.S. Supreme court cases referencing the Federalist will be added to those listed below as they are found...

- U.S. Supreme Court cases that reference the Federalist Papers

Saul Cornell lies again....

The disingenuous Saul Cornell is at it again. His latest attempt at subversion is called; "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America". Mr. Cornell's lies can easily be disproven with the following quotes:

The PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL British-American 'subject' BEFORE the Constitution;

"This law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these."

"...The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.

The DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED NATURAL RIGHT of the new American citizen AFTER the Constitution;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of
their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803).

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

If the above quotations aren't enough, then the following surely is:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is
paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia
(1821).

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

“Afforded us by God & Nature”

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”

Life, Liberty and Property

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People

"the overruling law of self preservation"

'for the common defence' (?)

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"

"The Right to Self Defense"

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins

Precedent

After The Fact

Amendment II and the Law

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

Saul has been shown this information before. So, one can only conclude that he is either blind, or a deliberate and treasonous liar.....

GunShowOnTheNet Supports Ron Paul for President of the U.S. in 2008...

Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America

Would have hoped that Mr. Paul would have stood for rolling back ALL PERVERSELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'gun control' laws. But, he does support rolling them back to 1968.

It is my contention that ALL 'gun control' laws; local, state and federal should be rolled back to Dec. 15th, 1791....

"...that a bold and daring usurpation might be resisted..."

"It will not be denied, that a bold and daring usurpation might be resisted, after an acquiescence still longer and more complete than this...."

"...We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)]

"Discharging a loaded pistol..."

"Indeed, is not this so of acts done in the execution of any crime? Discharging a loaded pistol at a target is an innocent pastime; discharging a loaded pistol at a human being, with felonious intent, takes a quality from such intent and may constitute murder."

- Mr. Justice McKenna, Delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, [HYDE v. U S, 225 U.S. 347 (1912), Page 225 U.S. 347, 360]

And what have we here? ...

ARTICLE II.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; nor in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that Congress shall not infringe the right. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542. This amendment is a limitation only on the powers of Congress and the National government. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the National government, as well as in view of its general powers, the States can not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource in maintaining the public security. State legislatures may, however, enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S., 252.

- Edwin Eustace Bryant, The Constitution of the United States, with notes of the decisions of the Supreme court thereon, from the organization of the court till October, 1900 (1901).

"The right of every individual to keep arms for his defence"

...Besides the reported adjudications of the Supreme Court of the United States, the sources which have been resorted to are, the contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution by the authors of "The Federalist;" that portion of the "Lectures" of the late Chancellor of this State, Mr. Kent, which relate to the subject; Mr. Rawle's "View of the Constitution;'' and the more elaborate "Commentaries" of Mr. Justice Story. To all these works the Author acknowledges his obligations, although he must lament that the last mentioned invaluable repository of Constitutional learning did not reach him in time to consult it more at large; and in regard to the abridgment of it lately published by the learned commentator, " for the use of Colleges andHigh Schools," it may be observed, that both from its size and mode of execution it seems to aim at more select and limited objects than those proposed by the present treatise....

...2. Universally, in the American States, open the establishment of independent Governments, which secured the enjoyment of

1. The inalienable natural rights of individuals.

2. The political and civil privileges of the citizens, designed for maintaining, or substituted as equivalents for, natural rights....

...28. Amongst these institutions was the Common Law of England, which, before the American Revolution, had been generally established as the municipal code of the British Provinces, so far as it was applicable to their situation and circumstances; and the benefit of it was claimed by the first general Congress as a branch of those " indubitable rights and liberties" to which the respective Colonies were entitled.

29. By this system of Law, the absolute and inalienable rights of the Colonists as individuals, were recognized and secured to them ; their relative rights, or political and civil privileges as members of society, regulated and maintained ; and offences against public justice investigated and punished.

30. The most essential of these privileges were those natural rights which are common to all mankind, and which, in virtue of certain fundamental laws of England, were held to be the peculiar birthright and inheritance of every British subject.

31. They consist either of that portion of natural liberty which is not required by the Laws of society to be surrendered for the public benefit; or, of those civil privileges which society engages to provide in lieu of them....

...33. The subordinate privileges of a similar character, to which the Colonists were entitled in lieu of those natural rights surrendered for the general benefit, were,

1. The constititution, powers, and privileges of their provincial assemblies, which were intended to preserve the Legislative power exercised over them in due health and vigour, and to prevent the enactment of Laws destructive to general liberty.

2. The limitation of the King's prerogative by certain arid notorious bounds; which was designed as a guard upon the Executive power by retaining it within the rules established by fundamental Laws.

3. The right of applying to the Courts of justice for the redress of injuries, and of having justice administered impartially and speedily; the most valuable incidents to which were the right of trial by jury; and the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus, as the most effectual security of the right of personal liberty.

4. The right of petitioning the King, or either branch of the Legislature, for the redress of grievances; and,

5. The right of every individual to keep arms for his defence, suitable to his condition and degree; which was the public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.* ....

...37. The same natural, political, and civil rights and privileges which had been declared to be the inalienable inheritance of the People as citizens of the respective States, were, on their becoming parties to the federal compact, expressly asserted to belong to them as citizens of the Union....

- WILLIAM ALEXANDER DUER, L.L.D., PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE IN THE CITY OF NEW-YORK, OUTLINES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1833.

Here's an interesting little U.S. Supreme Court case....

"...As Loving contends, and as we have explained elsewhere, the Framers well knew this history*[3], and had encountered firsthand the abuses of military law in the colonies..."

"...Nor does the majority cite any historical evidence, whether from the constitutional debates,*[5] the Federalist Papers, or some other source, that demonstrates that the Framers sought to embrace, or at least actively considered, the English system of shared power over the military. If the majority pointed to some basis for conducting the inquiry that it does, I might be willing to accept its analysis. Instead, the majority repeatedly substitutes ipse dixit for historical evidence..."

- Loving v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, "Instead, the majority repeatedly substitutes ipse dixit for historical evidence", June 3, 1996.

Well, well what have we here? ...

Houston v. Moore, U.S. Supreme Court, "what arms and accoutrements the officers and privates shall provide themselves with", Feb. 16, 1820

Looks like our government(s) have some explaining to do.....

Well now, what have we here...

"The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." . . . and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God."

- MR. JUSTICE CLARK deliver[ing] the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court,[ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Page 374 U.S. 203, 212, 213] Decided June 17, 1963.

That decision still stands, if I'm not mistaken....

McDonald V. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, [concerning Washington D.C.] Dec. 13, 1948

...I am the less reluctant to reach this conclusion because the method of enforcing the law exemplified by this search is one which not only violates legal rights of defendant but is certain to involve the police in grave troubles if continued. That it did not do so on this occasion was due to luck more than to foresight. Many home-owners in this crime-beset city [Washington D.C.] doubtless are armed. When a woman sees a strange man, in plain clothes, prying up her [Page 335 U.S. 451 , 461] bedroom window and climbing in, her natural impulse would be to shoot. A plea of justifiable homicide might result awkwardly for enforcement officers. But an officer seeing a gun being drawn on him might shoot first. Under the circumstances of this case, I should not want the task of convincing a jury that it was not murder. I have no reluctance in condemning as unconstitutional a method of law enforcement so reckless and so fraught with danger and discredit to the law enforcement agencies themselves....

- [Mr. Justice JACKSON, concurring.]

Well, well look at what we have here....

"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments, [Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."

"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."

- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, (Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

Get Ready to be VERY Pissed off:

"...It was aimed at restraining and checking the powers of wealth and privilege. It was to be a charter of liberty for human rights against property rights. The transformation has been rapid and complete. It operates today to protect the rights of property to the detriment of the rights of man. It has become the Magna Charta of accumulated and organized capital.' Collins, The Fourteenth Amendment and the States, (1912) 137, 138. That this feeling was shared, at least in part, by members of this Court is revealed by the vigorous dissents that have been written in almost every case where the Twining and Hurtado doctrines have been applied to invalidate state regulatory laws. [Footnote 13]

"Later decisions of this Court have completely undermined the phase of the Twining doctrine which broadly precluded reliance on the Bill of Rights to determine what is and what is not a 'fundamental' right...."

- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, THIS DECISION, (Justice Black's Dissent), EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHAT WENT WRONG WITH OUR RIGHT(S), June 23, 1947

Justice Oliver Wedell Holmes:

"But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

- U.S. Supreme Court, KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR, Footnote 10, 366 U.S. 36 (1961), Decided April 24, 1961.

Hmmm, now WHY haven't we seen THIS before.....

"That it is the duty of citizens by force of arms to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution.

"The common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution. It empowers Congress to provide for such defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for calling it forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; it makes the President commander in chief of the army and navy and of the militia of the several states when called into the service of the United States; it declares that, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We need not refer to the numerous statutes that contemplate defense of the United States, its Constitution and laws, by armed citizens. This court, in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , page 378, 38 S. Ct. 159, 161 (62 L. Ed. 349, L. R. A. 1918C, 361, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 856), speaking through Chief Justice White, said that 'the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need. ...'

"Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the country's defense detracts from the strength and safety of the government."

- United States v. Schwimmer, 1929. [With quotes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]

Ralph Waldo Emerson....

"...In these calamities under which they suffer, and the worse which threaten them, the people of Kansas ask for bread, clothes, arms and men, to save them alive, and enable them to stand against these enemies..."

"...Every man stood on his own feet, was his own governor; and there was no breach of peace . . . Every man throughout the country was armed with knife and revolver, and it was known that instant justice would be administered to each offence, and perfect peace reigned..."

- Speech At the Kansas Relief Meeting, Sept. 10, 1856

Chap. XIV.: of the first and second natural laws, and of contracts...

"A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For, as I have showed before, no man can transfer, or lay down his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, the avoiding whereof is the only end of laying down any right; and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no covenant transferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may covenant thus, unless I do so, or so, kill me; he cannot covenant thus, unless I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me. For man by nature chooseth the lesser evil, which is danger of death in resisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in that they lead criminals to execution, and prison, with armed men, notwithstanding that such criminals have consented to the law, by which they are condemned."

- Thomas Hobbes, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. 3 (Leviathan), Chap. XIV.: of the first and second natural laws, and of contracts.

An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, By John Taylor

...Against the oppressions of Mr. Adams’s hereditary representatives, nations have no remedy but physical strength; against those of temporary representatives, the moral force of opinion suffices. The first remedy can never be legally exerted, because no government will make laws to punish itself; to avoid which, these hereditary representatives invariably disarm the people, and so make the remedy for the coercion of this virtual representation quite nominal. Its use is moreover prohibited by the dreadful avenger of rebellion. Restrained by the dangers which beset it, the physical strength of a nation moves only in the paroxysm inspired by long suffering or extreme peril; and it is to the overthrow of reason, by this paroxysm, that the frequent disappointments of national exertion, to enforce virtual responsibility, are to be ascribed.

By our policy, actual responsibility is preferred to virtual, or to speak correctly, nominal. Conscious of the danger arising from the physical force of mercenary troops, it insists upon the necessity of securing to the nation the only safe protector of moral or political power, in an armed militia; to prevent responsibility from rebelling against nations, by the same means used by monarchs and orders, to prevent nations from rebelling against them. Under the protection of the physical power of a militia, the moral or political power reserved by our policy to the people, acts legally and peaceably, by opinion and election; and the reason of the nation can have recourse to a degree of reflection and deliberation, unattainable during the confusion, the dangers, and the crimes of civil war. Without a sound militia, all popular rights, including election itself, must become tenants at will, of monarchical or aristocratical landlords....

- Section the Sixth, THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

"Of the subordination of the powers of the commonwealth."

"Though in a constituted commonwealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate; yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still “in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative,” when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end; whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject: for no man, or society of men, having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another; whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with; and to rid themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved."

- John Locke, The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes, (London: Rivington, 1824 12th ed.). Vol. 4, CHAPTER XIII., "Of the subordination of the powers of the commonwealth." § 149.

A Vindication of the Rights of Men

"If I were not afraid to derange your nervous system by the bare mention of a metaphysical enquiry, I should observe, Sir, that self-preservation is, literally speaking, the first law of nature; and that the care necessary to support and guard the body is the first step to unfold the mind, and inspire a manly spirit of independence."

- Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, in a Letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, occaisioned by his Reflections on the Revolution in France (2nd edition London, Printed for J. Johnson, 1790).

"...to provide himself with a horse, saddle, etc., pistols..."

"Each officer and private of the dragoons, to provide himself with a horse, saddle, etc., pistols and sabre; and each non-commissioned officer and private, with a carbine and cartouch-box, with twelve rounds for his carbine and six rounds for each pistol."

- Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 6.

Benjamin Franklin, Queries and Remarks respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1789

...Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to form a civil Society; each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little more Property than his Gun* and his Blanket, for at present he has no other. We know, that, when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a Property in them, his neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever they want Provision, it being one of their Maxims that hunting is free for all; the accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing....

...The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the Denomination of the LOWER; and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope, therefore, that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, "Stand in the old ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change." [Jeremiah 6:16]

(Read whole article here).

Thomas Jefferson, April 28, 1793 letter to George Washington

"...The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches,

1. The Moral law of our nature.

2. The Usages of nations.

3. Their special Conventions.

"The first of these only, concerns this question, that is to say the Moral law to which Man has been subjected by his creator, & of which his feelings, or Conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his creator has furnished him. The Moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society & the aggregate of the duties of all the individuals composing the society constitutes the duties of that society towards any other; so that between society & society the same moral duties exist as did between the individuals composing them while in an unassociated state, their maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation. Compacts then between nation & nation are obligatory on them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances however which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man & man: so are there also between nation & nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others. For the reality of these principles I appeal to the true fountains of evidence, the head & heart of every rational & honest man. It is there Nature has written her moral laws, & where every man may read them for himself. He will never read there the permission to annul his obligations for a time, or for ever, whenever they become "dangerous, useless, or disagreeable." Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted, Vattel, 2. 197, and tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, & the degree great. Of these, it is true, that nations are to be judges for themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another. But the tribunal of our consciences remains, & that also of the opinion of the world. These will revise the sentence we pass in our own case, & as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial & vigorous judges...."

- Thomas Jefferson, April 28, 1793 letter to George Washington. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford.]

They Thought They Were Free - But Then It Was Too Late

The Germans, 1933-45
By Milton Mayer

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing....

..."This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter....

..."Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late." ...

The Diary of Horatio Nelson Taft, 1861-1865. Volume 2

"Fears are now frequently expressed that we are to have trouble in the free states. There seems to exist a great number of peace men, men who are willing to make peace on any terms "only stop the war." The "Knights of the Golden Circle" (K.G.C.) a secret Society are said to have become numerous and are ready to overthrow the Govt if necessary to make Peace. "Union Leage" Secret Societies are now forming all over the Country to counteract the K.G.Cs. I intend to Join the U.L. tomorrow night. It is intended to have the unconditional Union Men in this City and all over the Country ready (at a moments warning, "armed to the teeth") for any emergency. The action of some of the State Legislatures, and conventions of the People, and the tone of some of the Interior Papers is somewhat alarming. There is as this State of things prove a great lack of confidence in those at the head of the Govt and who manage the War. But a Victory or two will put things "all right." No Separation. "No peace" for ten years to come, unless those in rebellion are willing to lay down their arms and return to their duty as Loyal Citizens, so say I.

- Horatio Nelson Taft, Washington Feb. 11, 1863.

Discovered this little "gem" from the writings listed below...

"...Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."

- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. (Mr. Gerry signed the Declaration of Independence. Was a Delegate to the 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention. Representative from Massachusetts, and later Vice-President of the U.S. under Madison.)

Elbridge Gerry, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, published during its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788

Gerry, Eldridge. Observations On the New Constitution, and On the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot. Sic Transit Gloria Americana. [boston: 1788.]

.
Webster, Noah. an Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed By the Late Convention Held At Philadelphia. With Answers to the Principal Objections That Have Been Raised Against the System. By a Citizen of America.

.
Jay, John. an Address to the People of the State of New-york On the Subject of the Constitution, Agreed Upon At Philadelphia, the 17th of September, 1787. New-york: Printed By Samuel Loudon, Printer to the State. [1788].

.
Smith, Melanchthon. an Address to the People of the State of New-york: Showing the Necessity of Making Amendments to the Constitution, Proposed For the United States, Previous to Its Adoption. By a Plebeian. Printed In the State of New York.

.
Webster, Pelatiah. the Weakness of Brutus Exposed: Or, Some Remarks In Vindication of the Constitution Proposed By the Late Federal Convention, Against the Objections and Gloomy Fears of That Writer Humbly Offered to the Public, By a Citizen of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Printed for, and to be had of John Sparhawk, in Market-Street, near the Court House M.

.
Coxe, Tench. an Examination of the Constitution For the United States of America, Submitted to the People By the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. Philadelphia: Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Junr. in Fourth- Street, between Market and Arch-Street.

.
Wilson, James. Substance of an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, Delivered, October Sixth, Mdcclxxxvii , 1787

.
Dickinson, John. the Letters of Fabius, In 1788, On the Federal Constitution; …. Copy-right Secured. From the Office of the Delaware Gazette, Wilmington, By W. C. Smith. 1797.

.
Hanson, Alexander, Contee. Remarks On the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government, Addressed to the Citizens of the United States of America, and Particularly to the People of Maryland, By Aristides. “as a Confederated Government Is composed of petty republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with regard to its external situation, by means of the association, it possesses all the advantages of extensive monarchies.” Mont. Sp. of Laws, B. 9, Ch. 1. Annapolis; Printed by Frederick Green, Printer to the State.

.
Randolph, Edmund. Letter On the Federal Constitution, October 16, 1787, By Edmund Randolph [richmond: Printed By Augustin Davis, 1787.]

.
Lee, Richard Henry. Observation Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government, Proposed By the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations In It. In a Number of Letters From the Federal Farmer.

.
Mason, George. the Objections of the Hon. George Mason, to the Proposed Federal Constitution. Addressed to the Citizens of Virginia. ….. Printed By Thomas Nicholas.

.
Iredell, James. [answers to Mr. Mason's Objections to the New Constitution, Recommended By the Late Convention. By Marcus. Newbern: Printed By Hodge and Wills, 1788.]

.
Ramsay, David. an Address to the Freemen of South Carolina, On the Subject of the Federal Constitution, Proposed By the Convention, Which Met In Philadelphia, May, 1787. Charleston, Printed By Bowen and Co., No. 31, Bay.

.
Bibliography and Reference List of the History and Literature of the United States Constitution 1787–1788.

Gerry and Washington, Sept. 1777

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 8 September 19, 1777 - January 31, 1778

Elbridge Gerry to George Washington

Sir Lancaster Sepr. 24th 1777 In Consequence of your Letter of the 22d directed to the President or any Member of Congress,(1) I have conferred with William Henry Esqr. of this Place upon the most expeditious Method of collecting the Arms & accoutrements in the Hands of the Inhabitants here & he is of opinion that it may be accomplished by your Warrant to him grounded on the late Resolution of Congress for that & other Purposes.(2) As there is not a prospect of having a Congress or Board of War for several Days to give him Authority, & the Articles are immediately wanted, he has consented to proceed on the Business without Delay in Expectation that on the Receipt of this You will give him full Powers to justify his Conduct & date them the 22d, that the Time of his Transaction may comport with his Commission. With Wishes of Success to your Excellency & the Cause in which You are engaged I remain sir very respectfully your most humble Sert,

E Gerry

RC (MH-H). 1 Washington's September 22 letter has not been found, but for further information on his concern for collecting arms in the neighborhood of Lancaster, see Washington's September 26 and 27 letters to Gerry in Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), 9:270, 27G75; and Gerry to Washington, September 25, 1777. 2 On September 17, Congress had given Washington broad authority to impress "all such provisions and other articles as may be necessary for the comfortable subsistence of the army under his command." JCC, 8:752.

*****

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 8 September 19, 1777 - January 31, 1778

Elbridge Gerry to George Washington

Sir Lancaster Sepr 25th 1777 3 0Clock P.M. I wrote You a Line Yesterday desiring You to impower Mr. Henry of this Place to collect the Fire Arms wanted for the Virginia Troops on their March to the Camp, since which your Letter of the 23d is received, desiring that a Number of Blankets & Shoes may be also collected.(1) I have seen Mr. Henry within this half Hour, & he informs me that he has collected already about 250 Arms, & shall be able to obtain about as many more. He also says that 300 pair Shoes went off this Morning to General Wayne, & that he will proceed in collecting as many pair of shoes, & Blankets, as can be procured or with propriety be taken from the Inhabitants of the Town, & Farmers in the Neighbourhood thereof. You will therefore be pleased to enlarge &c the Powers proposed to be given by your Excellency to Mr. Henry, and authorize him to collect the Articles last mentioned.(2) Colo R H Lee is present, & has just directed a Letter to the Commandg Officer of the Militia at Frederick Town in Maryland ordering on all the Militia that are armed & 500 of those that are unarmed to be supplyed in this Place. I have the Honor to be Sir with much Esteem your Excellency's very hum serv.

E Gerry

RC (DLC). 1 Washington's September 23 letter to President Hancock was read in Congress on September 27. JCC, 8:755; and Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), 9:25740. See also Gerry to Washington, September 24. 1777. 2 In a September 27 reply to Gerry, Washington repeated his September 25 demurer about seizing the arms of private citizens, but urged that the "collection of Blankets and shoes . . . cannot be carried to too great an extent." Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), 9:274 75.

*****

The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.

George Washington to Elbridge Gerry,

September 26, 1777.

Sir: I was this Morning favored with your Letter of the 24th. When I wrote Congress, I was informed, that there were several Arms in Lancaster belonging to the Public. These, with their Accoutrements, I wished to be collected and put into the Hands of the Militia coming from Virginia. But I did not mean that any, the property of Individuals, should be taken; because I did not conceive myself authorised, nor do I at this time, to order such a Measure. I don't know how the Inhabitants would relish such an exercise of Power. I rather think it would give great uneasiness. The Army is much distressed for Blankets and Shoes, and I wish the most vigorous exertions could be pursued to make a Collection the speediest possible where you are and in the Neighbourhood. I am satisfied, if proper Steps were taken, many might be procured. I have been and am doing all I can to make a Collection, but what will be obtained will be totally inadequate to the demand.82

[Note 82: "Since I wrote you a few minutes ago, His Excellency has received a letter from Mr, Gerry at Lancaster, in which he says that 300 pairs of Shoes had been sent off from thence to you; but as you have already obtained 200 pair from Reading', the General desires that when those arrive from Lancaster, they may be sent to the Clothier Genl: to be distributed among the Troops."-- Tench Tilghman to Brig. Gen. Anthony Wayne, Sept. 27, 1777. Tilghman's letter is in the Washington Papers.]
We are now in Motion and advancing to form a junction with Genl McDougall. I expect to be joined in a day or two by Genl. Foreman with fourteen or Fifteen hundred Jersey Militia. The Main body of the Enemy are also advancing towards Philadelphia, and were below Germantown from my last advices; which also mentioned, that a Thousand Infantry, with about 100 Dragoons, had filed off towards Chesnut Hill. I fear they are pushing for Bristol, after our Stores, which I am apprehensive are not entirely removed tho' l gave orders for it, the Moment I heard they were there. I am &c.83

[Note 83: The draft is in the writing of Robert Hanson Harrison.]

*****

The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.

George Washington to Elbridge Gerry,

Camp at Pennybecker's Mill, September 27, 1777.

Sir: I am favored with yours of the 25th. I yesterday wrote you, that I did not think myself Authorised to seize upon any Arms the property of private Persons; but if they can be collected and the owners satisfied for them, it would be of very essential service, as great numbers of Militia would join the Army, could they be furnished with Arms. I am glad you have began the collection of Blankets and Shoes; this business cannot be carried to too great an extent, and I think, if the Measure is properly pursued, great Quantities of Blankets, Rugs and Coverlids, may be collected in the back Counties. The approach of the Enemy to Philadelphia, hindered the Officers I sent upon that Business from doing much; the disaffected hid their goods the moment the thing took wind and our friends had, before, parted with all they could spare. As soon as Gibson's Regiment or any of the Virginia Militia arrive at Lancaster, be pleased to send them forward without delay. I am &ca.87

[Note 87: The draft is in the writing of Tench Tilghman.]

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)....

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

- Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859).

James Madison to Tench Coxe, "Your arguments appear to me to place the subject to which they relate in its true light", Jan. 3, 1788

Dear Sir

New York

Jany. 3d. 1788

I have been favored with yours of the 28 Ult. and thank you for the paper which it inclosed.(1) Your arguments appear to me to place the subject to which they relate in its true light*, and must be satisfactory to the writer himself whom they oppose, if he can suspend for a moment his preconceived opinions. But whether they should have any effect or not on him, they will unquestionably be of service in Virginia, and probably in the other Southern States. Col. Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation with myself.....

* - And here are two examples of the articles which Mr. Madison states “place the subject to which they relate in its true light”. And, which apparently “Col. Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation”:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe, 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Dec. 9, 1868

...I renew the recommendation contained in my communication to Congress dated the 18th July last--a copy of which accompanies this message--that the judgment of the people should be taken on the propriety of so amending the federal Constitution that it shall provide--

1st. For an election of President and Vice-President by a direct vote of the people, instead of through the agency of electors, and making them ineligible for re-election to a second term.

2d. For a distinct designation of the person who shall discharge the duties of President, in the event of a vacancy in that office by the death, resignation, or removal of both the President and Vice-President.

3d. For the election of senators of the United States directly by the people of the several States, instead of by the legislatures; and

4th. For the limitation to a period of years of the terms of federal judges.

Profoundly impressed with the propriety of making these important modifications in the Constitution, I respectfully submit them for the early and mature consideration of Congress. We should, as far as possible, remove all pretext for violations of the organic law, by remedying such imperfections as time and experience may develop, ever remembering that "the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." ...

ANDREW JOHNSON.
Washington, December 9, 1868.

"Has not every Peasant in Virginia & North Carolina a Gun?"

We have been for some days past in the most impatient expectation of hearing that the Virtue and ardor of our Countrymen had put a stop to the Progress of Cornwallis, and a period to his handfull of men with which that adventurous Knight Errand had dared to traverse the Southern States, and (as if bidding defiance to our Patriotism and Courage) has with three thousand troops thrown down the Gauntlet to forty thousand at least, who are nearer to him than he is to any support. Good God! Shall it be said that this man has dared to Venture near three Hundred miles from the Sea Coast and above two Hundred from any of his Posts and shall be permitted again to return! I cannot believe it. It is said we want Arms-Has not every Peasant in Virginia & North Carolina a Gun? with what weapons were the Battles of Bunkers Hill, Bennington and Kings mountain fought. But I will not dwell on a Subject which affords so much Chagrin. I will suppose that the Spirit of America has again roused and that Saratoga is revived at the Saura Town.(1) I have been unwearied in my applications for a Maritime force from Rhode Island and should in my last have informed you that I had at last obtained it through the French Ministery-but was afraid to trust it to paper as it was so profound a secret that no one in Philadelphia except him & myself knew it was saild untill we had reason to expect it had arrived....

- Theodorick Bland to Richard Henry Lee, March 5th 1781. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 17.]

"THE GANG"

How A Government Agency Uses The Law To Destroy Your Rights And Freedoms

Treason Doth Never Prosper (Part 5): What’s Your Emergency?

The following article is the fifth part of a series authored by Dave Hodges, the Party Chairman Constitution Party of Arizona.

“Treason doth never prosper: What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Ovid

“Hello, 911 Operator, what is your emergency?”

“I am at King’s Harbor Hospital and my girlfriend, Edith Rodriguez, is lying on the floor vomiting blood,” said her boyfriend, Jose Prado, as the security videos showed hospital personnel standing around while the hospital janitor mopped around Edith Rodriguez’s near lifeless body as she lie on the floor.

Edith Rodriguez, the 43-year-old mother of three children had collapsed in the emergency room of Los Angeles ' Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital . The 911 dispatch operators received two calls asking for an ambulance to be sent to the ER because the hospital personnel were not treating Ms. Rodriguez. In both cases, the dispatcher refused to comply with the request citing that treatment was available where Ms. Rodriguez was located.

Within 45 minutes, Edith Rodriguez was dead.

Of course, there will be an investigation. The 911 operators will likely be fired. The 911 service will, no doubt, settle out of court with the grief stricken Rodriguez family. The hospital will issue a statement stating that the death was regrettable and that ER procedures are under review. But no amount of concilliation will bring Edith back to life.

According to the coroner , Ms. Rodriguez’s condition was not terminal if only it had been treated in a timely fashion. Now three children will have to learn how to live without their mother because of this terrible, terrible neglect and breakdown of human decency.

Although the actions of the 911 operators and the hospital are reprehensible, the Rodriguez family’s grief is not entirely the fault of the dispatchers or the hospital ER personnel. Some common sense and a sense of compassion would have certainly been in order. If someone, anyone, would have followed the Golden Rule, Edith would now be home with her family. However, one of the unmentioned culprits, in this tragedy, lies with our broken health care system, particularly in the Southwest.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985, hospitals are obligated to treat the uninsured without reimbursement. This court mandate would include illegal alien immigrants. This one court ruling has set the stage for the demise of 100 hospitals nationwide.

The fact remains that ER’s in the American Southwest cannot afford to subsidize the health care of illegal aliens. In 2005, it cost $200 million to provide for emergency health care for illegal aliens in the Border States annually. California with over three million illegals paid $79 million. Unable to budget enough to support the influx of patients to ER’s, ER waits are long and the triage process of prioritizing patients is often an exercise in coin flipping.

If the aforementioned tragic facts do not speak for themselves, let me relate a personal story related to my own family’s experience with emergency room care right here in Phoenix .

When I read about the death of Edith Rodriguez, I experienced flashbacks and all the accompanying anger and anxiety. Both during and after the pregnancy of our son, my wife had developed some very serious health maladies. The most serious health condition was a very serious case of preeclampsia. The condition is a threat to both the unborn child and the mother. When preeclampsia is severe, it can affect many organs and cause serious or even life-threatening problems. Premature delivery is common if the woman’s condition is severe enough. As a result, my son, weighing in at 2 pounds-7 ounces, was delivered at the beginning of the 7th month of pregnancy. Fortunately, my son received expert care at St. Joseph ’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). In the two months I visited my son in the hospital, I watched in horror as I witnessed that many premature babies never left the hospital. My son was lucky, luckier than many. Today, my son is a happy, intelligent and very loving six year old. His mother and I owe his survival to the grace of God and the expert care that he received in NICU.

My wife, however, was not so lucky. My wife almost became a victim of some of the same unwarranted pressures that I believe led to the death Ms. Rodriguez. My wife spent a total of two months in the hospital in order to control the debilitating effects of preeclampsia. At first, my wife received excellent care in the intensive care unit at St. Josephs Hospital . Shortly after the birth of my son, my wife was discharged. However, within a few days, my wife’s condition worsened and we experienced a nightmare series of events at the hands of St. Josephs ER and their “general admission” hospital room staff.

When we arrived at the hospital, my wife was doubled over in pain. After filling out the obligatory paperwork, my wife was banished to a corner of the ER to suffer in silence. It took two hours for the nurse to take her vitals. It took another 7 hours to see the doctor. In between, I had 3 conversations with ER personnel about the seriousness of the condition only to receive a variety of cereal box answers designed to gain my silence. Finally, when the infection spread to the point where my wife’s caesarian section (from delivery) eventually burst, I was finally able to get the attention of medical personnel in order that my wife would receive, by this time, lifesaving treatment. And this treatment was only obtained only after I engaged in a series of histrionic rants.

My wife’s situation was potentially life threatening and was treated with all the seriousness that a physician’s assistant would treat the cold and flu. And the cold and the flu was precisely what were mostly individuals were being treated for at the ER, while my wife suffered in abject agony. I cannot tell you what country most of the cold and flu sufferers hailed from. However, I do know that it was not the United States . And I could also tell you that most did not speak English and required interpreters in order to receive treatment ahead.

During her second stay in the hospital, my wife was continually packed with gauze. On the final day to remove the gauze, the nurse inadvertently left one of the gauze pads in my wife’s closing wound. When I chased the nurse down, insisting that she needed to recheck my wife for a gauze pad that I believed was left in her abdomen, she was indignant and rude. Only after I relentlessly insisted, did the nurse check and subsequently find and remove one more gauze pad. So, if you think that the Edith Rodriguez’s tragedy is just an aberration in our health care system, think again. The same almost happened to the Hodges’ family and it could most certainly happen to your family. Our health care system is broken and is financially choking on the wave of illegal immigrants which receive free health care on our nickel. And many times, this “free” medical care is delivered at the expense of our loved ones health and safety. Most nurses, today, are overworked and exhausted by this broken system. Why do you think there is such a nursing shortage?

In the United Nations sponsored annual health care report, the U.S. is credited with having the most expensive health care in the world. However, in terms of overall health care effectiveness, the U.S. ranks 30th in the world http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/53/35779248.pdf; www.irdes.fr/ecosante/OCDE/500.html; ). Why? Perhaps it is because we are paying for the health care of several nations at once. Unable to budget for this travesty, ER’s are under-funded, understaffed, the care is often substandard and in the case of people like Ms. Rodriguez, our health care system can prove deadly!

As of 2005, 84 California hospitals closed their doors as a direct result of the rising number of illegal aliens and the subsequent non-reimbursed burden on the health care system. “One year of illegal alien health care costs would pay for border fences along our Southern border,” according to Congressman Gary Miller from California (http://www.house.gov/garymiller/IllegalsCost2005.html).
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons report on this subject included the following recommendations in the protection of Americans and their health:
Closing America 's borders with fences, high-tech security devices and troops.
Rescinding the U.S. citizenship of "anchor babies."
Punishing the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens as a crime.

An end to amnesty programs (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf).
At first glance, Senator Jon Kyl would seem to agree with the abovementioned recommendations when on May 23rd he stated, “Since entering the Senate in 1995, I have worked to inform people in Washington about the problems we face in Arizona because of porous borders and the importance of controlling our borders to protect our national security. I have sponsored and co-sponsored a number of bills to strengthen the resources of our border law enforcement, including recent legislation to dramatically increase the number of Border Patrol agents, along with funding for technology and other resources. Washington is finally beginning to recognize the dire need for America to enforce its immigration laws and secure our borders (http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=21492).” Please tell us, what happened Jon?

Of course we all realize that Senators Kyl and McCain are in favor of the passage of SB 1348 which will bring millions of more illegal immigrants to our country, over 100 million more people to be exact. Further, most informed Americans know that this influx of illegal aliens is in service to the corporate need for cheap labor. Public safety and health care be damned.

Profits over people, right Senators?

Senators Kyl and McCain, how many more people have to suffer and potentially die because of your servitude to the greed and lust of the global corporations and their insatiable thirst for illegal immigrant labor?

Arizonans should hold these reasons to recall Senators McCain and Kyl for their treasonous betrayal of the public trust in attempting to pass SB 1348, to be self evident (recallkylmccain@yahoo.com).

Treason prospers every single day that we let these senators, and those of similar character, stay in office.

I was lucky enough to get my wife back. Edith Rodriguez should have gone home to her children.


© 2007 All Rights Reserved

Dave Hodges is a former Republican who left the party in 2003. Dave has appeared on several radio shows and has written for several web sites across the country. Dave Hodges is not aligned with the political right or the political left. He is a constitutionalist and believes that the answer to our country’s problems lies in following the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and following the United States Constitution. Dave Hodges is currently the spokesperson for the Arizona Coalition to Protect Personal Property Rights which is a grass roots organization which is tasked with the responsibility in assisting Arizonans in the defense of their personal property rights. Dave Hodges is also the Chairperson of the Constitution Party of Arizona. Nationally, the Constitution Party is the fastest growing party in the country and the party now stands as the third largest party. Presently in Arizona , a ballot eligibility drive is underway and will be completed by the fall of 2007. To find out more about the Constitution Party, please visit the web site at www.constitutionparty.org. If you would like Dave Hodges to speak to your group, or organization, he can be contacted at azconstitutionparty@yahoo.com.

Treason Doth Never Prosper (Part 4): The Numbers Do Not Lie

The following article is the fourth part of a series authored by Dave Hodges, the Party Chairman Constitution Party of Arizona.

“Treason doth never prosper: What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Ovid

For once, Senator McCain may have actually been telling the truth when he told Lou Dobbs “But it (SB 1348) will also enhance interior enforcement and put employers on notice that the practice of hiring illegal workers will no longer be tolerated” (CNN Lou Dobbs, 5/19/2007). The Senator is correct. After all, if millions of illegal aliens would have been granted amnesty, and the guest worker visa programs were greatly expanded, employers would be hard pressed to find an illegal alien to hire. This would be like grounding your child after they have moved out of your house. Fortunately, SB 1348 stalled in the Senate on Thursday.

Hip-hip hurray! The good guys have won……., at least for now!

Under pressure from the American people, the Senate has tucked its tail and is scurrying for cover after refusing to act on SB 1348. The vote against cloture on SB 1348 failed by a vote of 45 to 50. For the first time, in a long time, mainstream America stood up to their elected officials, and with a unified voice, gave a resounding NO to amnesty. Even some of the most steadfast political, corporate servants who support total amnesty, such as Jon Kyl, have slithered into hiding in order to escape the tidal wave of political pressure which was generated by grassroots America.

With the corporate power brokers and the leadership from both parties supporting amnesty, most political pundits thought it was unavoidable that SB 1348 would eventually pass and become law. The corporate-controlled establishment totally underestimated the nation’s collective anger. This is, indeed, a time to celebrate! But please keep in mind that this is only one battle in a long campaign for control over the sovereignty of America and the collective resources of the American middle class.

All patriotic Americans need to be mindful that there is nothing to prevent the same treasonous senators (e.g., John McCain) from attempting to impose the will of their corporate benefactor’s amnesty plan on the American people at a later date. In fact, Senator, Harry Reid said we are finished with amnesty for the time being, but that he wants to revisit the issue at a “later time”. And despite being at the G8 Summit in Europe, President Bush has begun the process of reviving SB 1348 with a few well-placed phone calls to top GOP leaders on Friday. Subsequently, our victory could be very short-lived if we are not as Thomas Jefferson stated, “eternally vigilant”.

No doubt the corporate propagandists are already at work crafting the next phase of rhetoric designed to lessen the frenetic opposition that SB 1348 endured. What form will the new version of amnesty take? Nobody can be certain. However, Section 413 of SB 1348 may provide a clue as it was obvious that important provisions connected with the implementation of the North American Union were concealed within this latest amnesty bill (see Section 413 of SB 1348). Along the same lines, I would suspect that major provisions of the amnesty bill may make their way into law through the amendment process as riders on proposed bills which have nothing to do with amnesty or immigration. Again, eternal vigilance needs to be the order of the day for every loyal American.

Before we become privy to the corporate strategy which will underlie the new set of justifications used to grant amnesty, we should consider some very important data related to the issue of illegal immigration. The Washington Post reported (12/1/02) that over half of the new workers added to the American work force were largely illegal aliens. The article stopped short of explaining the impact that each and every illegal alien has on middle class economic interests. As Paul Harvey would say, please let me tell "the rest of the story."

Some who support immigration of any sort, including the illegal kind, say that it is not true that immigrants take jobs away from working Americans. Amnesty proponents maintain that immigrants work at back breaking jobs which are both dangerous and unpleasant which no self-respecting American would perform. According to the propaganda spewed by the apologists for amnesty, the laundry list of jobs that Americans will not engage in consists of agricultural labor, ditch digging and washing dishes. However, the true data tells a far different story.

The Pew Hispanic Center released a report in March, 2006, which estimated that illegal alien workers perform:
25% of all agricultural jobs17% of all office and house cleaning positions 14% all construction jobs12% of all food preparation jobs

However, the claim that illegals only take jobs that Americans will not perform is a myth when one considers the following:

75% of agriculture jobs are filled by Americans
83% of house cleaning jobs are filled by Americans
86% of construction jobs are filled by Americans
88% of food preparation jobs are filled by Americans

So much for the corporate-media created myth that illegal aliens are performing work that we won’t perform. Slavery will never be legally reinstituted, but for the global corporations, these millions of illegal aliens are the next best thing to involuntary servitude: People on both sides of the border are victims to the greed of the global corporations. Illegal foreigners accept sweat shop, corporate-sponsored exploitation. Illegals don't complain about hazardous working conditions, will work for sub-living wages and they do not demand expensive medical coverage or life insurance benefits.

John Snipes is a union carpenter in the Atlanta area and posted his views and experience on job displacement on an Atlanta Journal-Constitution forum. Despite being a highly skilled laborer, he has lost work to illegals willing to work for less. The loss of jobs, such as John Snipes’, exacerbates the loss in tax revenue from aliens who claim enough deductions to have no withholding. And we already know who is making up the unfunded tax bill.

Many Americans believe that because they have a college degree, or even an advanced degree, and a white collar job, that they are safe from employment competition from foreign laborers. On the contrary, job losses to illegal immigration only constitutes a portion of the threat to American workers.

Consider the case of Larry Schenone, who was unemployed for more than a year even though he is a mechanical engineer and possesses a master's degree in business. When unemployment came for Larry, at age 47, he was not exactly past his working prime. Prior to his unemployment, Larry was making an annual salary of $100,000 working for a St. Louis defense contractor. But Scherone and thousands like him have been hit by the double whammy of massive outsourcing of American engineering jobs to cheap-wage refuges, like India, and the continued influx of foreign technical workers working legally in the United States on guest worker visas.

Consider the case of Gene Nelson who is a biophysicist, possesses a PhD and became unemployed because his corporation hired a cheaper, younger foreign worker who displaced this American through the use of the H-1B visa program. Do you really think it cannot happen to you or will happen to your children in the near future? If not, please think again!

Harvard professor and Cuban immigrant, Jorge Borjas, as cited in his May 2007 study, Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigation, which was featured in The Center for Immigration Studies, found that by increasing the supply of labor through immigration, from the period 1960-2000, significantly lowered the earnings of native born workers. The Borjas study clearly indicates that immigration has indeed harmed the economic opportunities of American citizens. The effect of immigration on wages differs across education groups and racial groups. For example, the immigrant influx that entered the country between 1980 and 2000 lowered the wage by 7.4% for high school dropouts, by 3.6% for college graduates, and by 2% for both high school graduates and workers possessing some college. Of course, the impact is much larger for some specific experience groups within each educational category. Similarly, although this immigrant influx lowered the wages of Caucasian workers by 3.5%; it significantly lowered the wages of African Americans by 4.5%. Disturbingly, American born Hispanics wages saw a decrease in their wages by 5%. Dr. Borjas found the rate of decrease was the same whether the immigration was legal or illegal. Using a statistical technique referred to as multiple regression analysis, Borjas determined that a 10% increase in the number of workers in a particular skill group reduces the wage of the workers in that skill group by 3.5%.

Let’s do a quick mathematical analysis on SB 1348 and the general effect that its passage would have had on the average income of Americans by using the ratios derived from the Borjas formulas for calculating the economic impact of immigration. Assuming a linear relationship, an increase of 20 million illegal laborers would have the impact of lowering American wages by an average of 2%. However, one would assume that the 20 million has already had their impact on American wages since, according to the Borjas theorem, it does not matter if the immigration is legal or not. So, we will not count the first 20 million illegal aliens who would have received amnesty under SB 1348. But if we consider SB 1348’s “Friends and Family Plan” in which family members would be eligible to join illegals receiving amnesty, the impact would conservatively be placed at adding 80 million new people over the next twenty years. Using the Borjas formula, the passage of SB 1348 would result in the decline of American wages decline by a staggering 9.45%. And when considers that this group will largely be working at subsistence wages, the rest of the America, will also be paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden. This is an economic weight that the American middle class cannot bear.

Any elected official who supports this insanity, needs to removed from office. If a senator supported SB 1348 without realizing the full impact of the bill, they need to be recalled from office for incompetence. If a senator knowingly supported SB 1348 and was aware of the economic consequences, they need to be recalled for treasonous behavior against the people of the United States. It is time to place the blame where it belongs, namely, on the global corporations and their political servants (e.g., John McCain and Jon Kyl).

Fellow Constitution Party member, Michelle Dallacroce, founder of Mothers Against Illegal Aliens, has initiated a recall effort against Jon Kyl and John McCain for their role in perpetrating the attempted giveaway of American sovereignty under SB1348. In my position as Arizona State Party Chairman of the Constitution Party, I am urging every American who is desirous of preserving the future of our great country to support the Ms. Dallacroce’s sponsored recall of John McCain and Jon Kyl for their treasonous support of amnesty and SB 1348.

On the surface a recall of both Arizona senators may seem radical. However, when one considers the breakneck speed in which the global takeover of America is taking place, we cannot afford to wait for the next general election. All of the following are parts of the same plan; CAFTA, NAFTA, the NAU and amnesty for illegal aliens. These sovereignty snatching programs are at, or near, completion. We must act NOW if we are to preserve the country.

I would like to invite everyone who wants to take this country back to a part of the solution. Therefore, if you would like to help with the recall of Kyl and McCain please send an email message to Michelle Dallacroce, with your contact information, to recallkylmccain@yahoo.com

The future of our children rises and falls on what we do today. Doing nothing is tantamount to letting this treason continue to prosper.


© 2007 All Rights Reserved (Reprinted with permission from the author).