AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY STAND ON
NATIONAL or STATE IDENTIFICATION, "NATIONAL ID" and "REAL ID"
1.) On the issue of a "National ID" or "Real ID", the American Patriot Party stands firmly against any such "National Identification" whether for person, property or animal ownership for any reason.
"BRANDING" in any form, is a act, practice and DESIGN of implementing "SLAVERY"
Theattempt by Oregon legislature as well as other state legislatures to beginimplementing a "National ID" for animals (property) in the pretense or guiseof "health or spread of disease" is yet another attempt by the federalgovernment to "measure everything you eat, drink or wear" as presented inPatrick Henrys warning in the constitutional debates;
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: [1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: "...They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} "measure", every thing you eat, drink, and wear.
They ought to be "restrained" Within "proper bounds"."
And by these, the Constitution's limits and Bill of Rights, exceeds the limited "delegated"powers of the national "and" state governments into privacy guaranteed bythe Constitution and all natural law of being secure in person, papers andeffects.
Disease can be tracked by private as well as state and counties with interstate agreements when any disease may arise.
There is no need for "National ID" or "Real ID".
TheExcuse for national ID in either Man or Animal can only be for the purposeof invading peoples privacy to control and have record of what they own formore invasive taxation and property manipulation.
It is purposely proposed to count the number of persons and of animals you possess and determine the value of each in taxation.
It is a clear misuse of the definition "providing for the General Welfare".
George Mason: "But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states.
Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted" to its "destruction". .... Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is "retained", it will be carried to "any power" Congress "may please"."
2.) In regard to "National ID" or "Real ID" for U.S Citizens, it is the attempt by federal agencies pressed on by private institutions and foreign interests under the "GUISE"of necessity or "public welfare" to use simple boarder issues and the randomacts of criminals to enact laws to shackle the freedoms and liberties ofUnited States Citizens. Boarder issues are not an excuse to number the citizenryof the states. (See also Immigration)
Rights of the Colonists 1772: Rights as Men: "All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please:And in case of intolerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and "enter into another".--
In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, .... as is before observed, are life "liberty" and property.
"The natural "liberty" of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."--
3.) Such national ID is rooted in socialism and the propagation of "fear" alone, instigated by the fearful and manipulative bureaucratic and private powers to organize people into their own "designs" .
John Adams:"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutala passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid andmiserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." — Thoughts on Government, 1776
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there "is" tyranny."
There "is" Tyranny.
4.) It is the position of the American Patriot Party that Tyranny "is" present; And to seriously urge that all representatives lay down any contemplation of it and bar all private enterprise from establishing any construction of it; for any reason what so ever..
As even when voluntarily accepted, it is voluntary slavery; Prohibited by the Constitution and all foundations of freedom before it.
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right,the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutelyvacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and "voluntarily" become a slave."
Declaration of Independence:
"That, to secure "these" rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the "consent" of the governed; that, whenever "any form" of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the "right" of "the people" to "alter" or to "abolish" it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence,indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changedfor light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shownthat mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, thanto right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
5.) It is the expansion of powers the Constitution does not grant;
It is a perversion of the Constitution:
Constitutional Convention Debates - MONDAY, June 16, 1788. [1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] :
George Mason: "But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states.
Otherwise,the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted" to its"destruction". .... Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is "retained", it will be carried to any power Congress may please."
6.) It is the enactment of human slavery and control.
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
7.)It is the removal of the essential rights of "property of one's own person",of ones willing consent, of personal privacy and of personal liberty:
Rights of the Colonists 1772
"...Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without "consent"?
"The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, ANY PART of his property without his "CONSENT", in person "OR by his REPRESENTATIVE".--" (APP Note: VERY IMPORTANT POINTS, as even representatives do not have this power)
" These are some of the "FIRST PRINCIPLES" of natural law & Justice, and the GREAT BARRIERS of ALL FREE STATES," ...
8.) It is the chainwork and shackles of national taxationschemes and subjugation to a socialist and tyrannical governmentalpower. And reason to limit the federal government's powers of taxation (ANONYMITY TAX):
Declaration of Independence, 17th Grievance and definition of a tyrannical government: "For imposing taxes on us without our "CONSENT";
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] (see link for full)
Patrick Henry: ... "A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That our rights are reserved.Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen'sreasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me. Without sayingwhich has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favoritething with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. Itmay be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit their geniuses;otherwise, its operation will be unhappy.
A bill of rights, evenif its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and,with great submission, I think the best way is to "have no dispute".
In the present Constitution (Under Articles of Confederacy and Virginia Constitution),they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places,or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact,&c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those whodeliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred!
The officers of Congress (of the proposed Constitution) may come upon you now, fortified with all the "terrors" of paramount "FEDERAL AUTHORITY". Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. (APP Note: this was a serious warning long before the 16th amendment)
They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} "measure", every thing you eat, drink, and wear.
They ought to be "restrained" Within "proper bounds".
Withrespect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hopedthat the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to "infringe" as "littleas possible" the rights of "human nature". This will result from their "integrity".They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents.They are not, however, "expressly" restrained. But "whether" they willintermeddle with "that" palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to "determine"."
9.) Regardlessof arbitrary law, the natural law is clear, it is to be anonymous and freefrom any superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislativeauthority of man.
Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists 1772
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are "clearly" "entitled to", by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.--"
"The natural liberty of man is to be "free from" any superior power on earth, and not to be under the "will" or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."--
10.) It is an immeasurable crime against freedom and a free people to be branded like cattle for "convenience" of the federal or state bureaucracies, for which no remedy but defiance and removal by force shall be given should any establishment of it be attempted.
Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object,
"evinces" a "DESIGN" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their "duty",
to "throw off "such" government" and to provide new guards for their future security."
11.)All free citizens should involve themselves in representation in governmentto protect this country, refusing to allow such measures or mandates withintheir states;
"Governors" should make sure of their state's ability, through their powers of arming state and localized militia, (notthe national guard which is ultimately controlled by the national government),to repel an invasion of rights; and assure assistance from and to neighboringstates for which all states have the right and power to prepare for, andto establish:
Here these "powers" of the state to do so without hindrance are made clear:
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.
Mr. MADISON answered, that the "state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the "actual"service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections,quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any otherstate, to aid them, if necessary."
Mr. Corbin: "He thought this section gave the states power to use their own militia, and call on Congress for the militia of other states".
"The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, "as" they had "not" given it away?For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatureshad power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away."
"ForContinental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppressinsurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by thepeople is "not taken away"; for the Constitution >> does "not" say so . In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also".The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusiveof the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, thatwhen power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislaturebefore, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are "no negative words" here.
It rests, therefore, with the "states".
Tome it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forththe militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done "before" its adoption.
Gentlemenhave said that the states cannot defend themselves without an applicationto Congress, because Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show {420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besideswhere an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained inthe 10th section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions in that section.
But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "can" engage in "war", as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it "necessary"."...
Theidea of the worthy member supposes that men renounce their own interests.This would produce general inconveniences throughout the Union, and wouldbe equally opposed by all the states. But the worthy member fears, that inone part of the Union they will be regulated and disciplined, and in anotherneglected. This danger is enhanced by leaving this power to each state; for some states may attend to their militia, and others may neglect them. If Congress neglect our militia, "we can arm them ourselves". >>>>Cannot Virginia "import arms? >>>>Cannot she put them into the hands of >>> "HER" >>> militia-men?
He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being >>>"possessed of it" antecedent to the adoption of the government, and >>>not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as >>>FULLY possessed of it as ever they had been. And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, >>>but retained them, >>> though not acknowledged in any part of it ."
(for complete Constitutional Debate on this issue click HERE)
12.) For all individuals to educate themselves in the foundations, definitions and purpose of freedom and to be aware and prepare themselves in all ways, at all timesto take stock in defense, food (6 mo. min. of canned goods on rotation),clothing, supplies and fuel with proper rotations of each and not to become complacent or accepting to all bureaucratic or private inventions that arise:
Agriculture,Ranch, and Dairy should make a continual habit of holding back and rotatingsuch reserves yearly as may be needed in food and supplies for as many asnumber can be feasibly undertaken. All persons should educate themselvesfor tending to the necessary preservation of family and friends and planfor logistics in supplying others;
To work to create networks of secure communication with others that needs no public or private company network or power.
Manufacturers,large and small, should lay groundwork on necessary supplies and augmentationof necessary manufacture and plan procedures in stock piling and implementationat a moments notice.
All military personal past, present or future should make their decisions as to where they stand and to where their "duty"stands. Educate themselves in the Founders writings and intents so that theycannot be deceived; Making choices to protect freedom and not simply go alongwith nationalist propaganda, unexplained military orders with questionablepurpose and causes that are of the ambitious in government and not of truefreedom;
The rule of thumb, is that the national army, which now includes the national guard, is for defense against foreigninvaders, not against domestic insurrections in defense of freedoms. If youare told to aim toward a citizen of the United States who you know is tobe defending your rights as defined by the Founders, lay down your weaponand or leave the field; A right of any truly voluntary force that defendsfreedoms.
Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to "each other" our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." (This can be said no clearer and surpasses all commands from government.)
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as "valid against" the United States under this Constitution as under the "Confederation". This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be "made" in >>>"pursuance thereof" ; and all Treaties (Oaths and Declarations) "made", or which shall be "made", under the Authority (Note that the ONLY "AUTHORITY" is LIMITED "WITHIN" the "DELEGATED POWERS") of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
The Constitution is limited to only those powers "DELEGATED" to it.
It has not the power to expand or "ARROGATE" its powers outside the LIMITED "DELEGATED powers".
Below are some thoughts to why the federal government must be only allowed operation within its very limited "delegated powers":
People often ignore the first part of Article VI:
Constitution:Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths andDeclarations), before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the "Confederation"....
The defining establishment of this can be found in the Constitutional Debates which define the second part of Article VI and Article 1, Section 8 (The sweeping clause): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;"
See Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 establishing that providing, i.e. collecting taxes, for the "General Welfare" is not a power of "general legislation" but a LIMITED power ONLY for paying the "debts" and providing for the "common defense"; NOTHING ELSE. NO SOCIAL SERVICES.; Further the founders state that the federal government can make NO REGULATION that even MAY effect the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE".
Virginia Ratifying Convention, MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Where James Madison clearly presents:
..."Thehonorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clausebe not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "latitude of construction" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there "would" be room for "those HORRORS". But it gives "NO" supplementary power. It ONLY enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers". If the "delegation" of their "powers" be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory."
What was James Madison responding to in the debate?
Let us review Patrick Henry's clear warning:
"If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, >>>>>>>>if "implication" "be allowed" , you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it "necessary" to {446} reserve them, they will be "supposed" to be given up. How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were "not then" contented with "implied" reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and "unavoidable implication", give up your rights to the general government.
Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw government that has abandoned all its powers the >>>>>powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse . You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights without check, limitation, or control. (see 16th amendment) And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend "you" against the state government, which is "bereaved of all power", and yet you have "none" against Congress, though in fill and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What "barriers" have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "common law" of England to be "in force"."
Mr. Pendelton:
"....I understand that clause as "not going" a "SINGLE STEP beyond" the "DELEGATED" powers.What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they shouldbe about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue someof the "delegated" powers, but can by "no means" depart from them, or arrogate "ANY NEW" powers; for the >>>>>>>PLAIN language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "delegated" powers"."
and again Patrick Henry:
"Weare told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representativesCongress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslaveourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves, Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny? They have been enslaved by the hands of their "own" people. If it will be so in America, it will be "only as it "has" been" "every where else"."
Quite some statements to consider, with regard to "DELEGATED" "powers".
Declaration of Independence establishes prior "ENGAGEMENT":
37th Grievance: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our "intentions", do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and "declare" that these united colonies are, and "of right" "ought to be", free and "independent" states;"
39th Grievance: "and that as free and independent states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of "RIGHT" do."
13.) And to possess powers greater than the standing army to impose that duty should the government (s) decide to "evince a design" to reduce them under absolute despotism"... .
Declaration of Independence, 12th Grievance in defining one of the definitions of a tyrannical government:
"He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power".
14.) "Despotism" is Tyranny and Tyranny in government is defined in the Grievances of the Declaration of Independence;
"Tyranny" is also defined in the history and prior declarations that had led to its construction.
SEE: The History and Foundations of Inalienable Rights
SEE: Powers of Counties, Powers of Communities and Importance of "Local" Legislatures (Dangers of Distant Legislatures)
See also Immigration
American Patriot Party National Political Campaign Election Headquarters
American Patriot Party Oregon Patriot Party |
