Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Contact

publiushuldah@gmail.com

234 Comments »

  1. Question: Since the 16th amendment only authorizes “direct” tax on incomes, how are the PPACA “tax” or the inheritance tax constitutional?

    Comment by SgtUSMC | May 12, 2014 | Reply

    • Very astute! The federal estate tax is 100% unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. So is the federal gift tax for the same reason. We never delegated to the federal government power to tax “estates” or “gifts”. By PPACA, do you mean obamacare? That too is 100% unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. We never delegated to the federal government power over medical care; and we never delegated a power to tax for any purpose whatsoever! The power to levy taxes delegated at Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 is limited to (1) excise taxes and import tariffs and (2) by the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. I.e., the federal government may lawfully levy taxes ONLY to carry out its enumerated powers! This is the Principle expressed by James Madison in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist Paper No. 41.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2014 | Reply

  2. Dear PH,
    I couldn’t find anything on the qualifications to be president on your blog. I read that Ted Cruz was born in Canada and while I believe his mother was a US citizen I don’t know how his birth place and the citizenship of his father would affect his qualification. Would you explain please?
    Thanks,

    Comment by Nelson | April 23, 2014 | Reply

    • Nelson,
      The qualifications imposed by the Constitution for the office of president are listed at Article II, Section 1, clause 5.
      So what is a “natural born citizen”? I prove the original intent of that term here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

      A “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of citizens. He is “born” a citizen b/c his parents were citizens at the time he was born. Children succeed to the status of their parents: If the parents are citizens, their baby is “born” a citizen. I prove that was the original intent in the linked paper.

      Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” b/c at the time he was born, his Father was not a citizen. Marco Rubio is not a “natural born citizen” b/c his parents weren’t citizens when he was born. If obama is really the son of the obama, Sr. then obama is not a “natural born citizen” either.

      In all cases, as I prove in my paper, location of birth is irrelevant.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 23, 2014 | Reply

      • Dear PH, Thank you for your response and I’m sorry to make you go back to your previously published commentary, which is great, but i looked under Categories for Article II sec I and found nothing. I wasn’t smart enough to click on Vattel.

        Comment by Nelson | May 1, 2014 | Reply

  3. PH,

    I ran across this recently and thought I’d pass the information along.

    Congressman Jim Bridenstine has introduced a bill (HJ Res 104) in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to levy the income tax. This was tried by Ron Paul a few years ago without success but with the current ire directed toward the IRS and if the Senate can go Republican this year it might gain traction.

    The plan is to have Congress repeal the 16th amendment – not a State convention. They are not advocating either the Fair tax or the Flat tax as a replacement but admit there should be ample time during the repeal process hold the discussion and put something in place. More information can be found at http://www.repeal16.org/

    There is of course a petition and letters to representatives asking them to support the legislation are encouraged.

    Comment by David Copley | March 28, 2014 | Reply

    • Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the “source” of the congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes, a power the Congress had since 1789, but only removed the possible requirement that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In Penn Mutual Indemnity, the United States Tax Court stated:[45]

      In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation… and has led to much loose thinking on the subject.

      The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

      Comment by Peabody | March 28, 2014 | Reply

      • It is NOT TRUE that Congress has had the power since 1789 to tax incomes! Your statement is totally false!

        I will show you how to think for yourself:
        Congress gets its powers from the Constitution. You must look at everything the Constitution says about Congress’ taxing powers:

        Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 3 says direct taxes must be apportioned among the several States. THAT prohibits an income tax.
        Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 lists the NON-direct taxes Congress may levy: duties, imposts & excises.
        Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4 AGAIN prohibits an income (direct) tax – the direct taxes must be apportioned among the States.

        The 16th Amendment removed the requirement of apportionment among the several States for direct taxation.

        Are you quoting Nick Dranias?

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 28, 2014 | Reply

  4. PH,

    I don’t know how you manage to carry on the fight. By the end of a week my brain is usually mush. This election year is going to be especially challenging as all sorts of groups issue hypothesis based on mostly partisan facts and a promise of trustworthiness. The latest of these I have linked here simply for the information of your group.

    Was there a runaway convention: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/03/runaway-convention/#TqMlqLtm1bABbIBV.99

    Top 10 birther arguments why Ted Cruz is eligible to be President: http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/03/13/the-top-ten-birther-arguments-against-ted-cruz-and-why-they-are-completely-wrong/

    Comment by David Copley | March 14, 2014 | Reply

    • I was a professional fighter; so that is how I am able to carry on. Nothing ever changes – people lie or ignorantly repeat what they have heard. I dealt with that when I was practicing; and deal with it now.

      But the sheer volume of the lying about this Art. V convention business and “natural born citizen” is mind boggling. The opposition lies continually about them – and since MOST PEOPLE uncritically believe whatever they hear – the liars get away with it.

      Of course, our Framers at the Federal Convention of 1787 exceeded the scope of the call issued by the Continental Congress! I have proved that by links to original source documents in my most recent paper: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/article-v-convention-how-individuals-of-insidious-views-are-stealing-our-constitution/ and in my last 5 or 6 papers as well.

      The opposition is lying about it. And (assuming they read my papers) unless people click on the links I provide to the original source documents and read them, they don’t know who is lying and who is telling the truth.

      The same goes for the “natural born citizen” issue: I proved the original intent here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

      But unless people (assuming they read my paper) click on the hyperlinks to original source documents I provide and read them, then they don’t know who is telling the truth and who is lying.

      So what is really the most discouraging to me is the apathy of the American People when it comes to finding out who is lying and who is telling the truth. The American People seem to choose their sides according to what they want to believe. If they “like” Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, then they accept what the liars tell them and reject what the truth tellers tell them.

      It is the indifference of the American People to TRUTH which is our downfall.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 14, 2014 | Reply

      • Thank you for fighting!

        The hyperlinks and reference material you provide are invaluable and I have learned more about our Constitution and government in three months then I have my entire life. That also proves that my focus was misplaced during my career and I should have been more attentive to the direction of our Republic.

        Unfortunately we live in an age of 140 character communication and instant gratification. Our government education system is failing people and reading levels are declining as well as the desire to investigate complex problems. In spite of that, you are helping many of us get to the truth and have the tools to counter these lies and falsehoods. If there is enough time we still have a chance to turn the tide.

        Comment by David Copley | March 17, 2014 | Reply

  5. I still have to wonder why if beholden to the government as you believe would he found a college that accepts zero government dollars to include VA benefits.

    Comment by Allen | March 11, 2014 | Reply

    • I was a litigation atty, and am astonishingly ignorant of tax and business law. However, perhaps you or someone you know can make sense of these filings:

      http://www.michaelfarrismoneymotive.org/node/4

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 11, 2014 | Reply

    • And I don’t think Farris is beholden to the fed gov’t. I thinks he wants a bigger and more powerful federal government. He definitely wants federal control of children. Several attorneys in other States have had dealings with Farris on home school issues in their States and Farris was for more State government control of education. But he tells people he is for the opposite of what he is actually doing; and since they don’t know what he is actually doing, they believe him.

      I don’t understand why so many want a powerful government. But they do. It is what most of us were indoctrinated in school to believe is a good idea. Did I show you this article? http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/graham-walker-michael-farris-and-fascism-in-a-christian-garb/

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 11, 2014 | Reply

  6. You have my attention.

    Comment by Allen | March 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, then you are a man who puts Truth in the First Place. But you know what? Reading behind the lines of your first posts, I thought that might be the case.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 11, 2014 | Reply

  7. This statement from “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers” bugs me just a bit as it responds to this gem (That States can’t nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because the Constitution doesn’t say they can do it.);
    “As we have just seen, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton saw nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government as a “natural right” – not a “constitutional right”. And since Rights come from God, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right”!”

    A more appropriate response, in my humble opinion, would have been; The Constitution is operable upon the Federal government only. It may only do and legislate in the enumerated areas. The reason the constitution is silent on what a State may do is it isn’t operative upon the States. They are to support and DEFEND the constitution and nullification is a prime weapon of the States.

    Comment by Dennis Joyce | March 6, 2014 | Reply

    • I would be sure that you know best, dear …

      … were it not that Jefferson, Madison, & Hamilton referred to nullification as a pre-existing natural right; and Madison specifically said it is not a “constitutional right”.

      I am not so enamored of my own views that I would ever substitute them for the words of Our Framers.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

    • I should have read further rather than being distracted.

      Comment by Dennis Joyce | March 6, 2014 | Reply

      • ha ha, you did make me smile! And since I am preparing for battle, I welcomed a smile!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 6, 2014 | Reply

  8. Discovered your site quite by accident – very informative. Would it be ok to reference any of your work or comments? Old school, deal in facts researching various topics for others in military who blog. Kinda behind the scenes guy. Have read most legislation passed through the years, attempt to keep up with court decisions and such. We were stationed in Hawaii when attacked; later Cuba during regime change from Batista to Castro. Fully aware of all that is happening and totally disgusted.

    Comment by Cid | March 4, 2014 | Reply

    • Thank you! Please help yourself. You were in Hawaii Dec. 7, 1941?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 4, 2014 | Reply

  9. Ms. Publius Huldah

    I am sorry for the assumptions and the age crack. I too am no spring chicken. Mr. Farris’s education amendment has no chance in hell of making it at a Convention for the point you mentioned. This country cannot even come together on a BBA. But that leads me to my last question; crying about federal spending and doing something about it are two different animals. We all know Congress has been reckless at best but that does not solve the problem. What is your solution?

    Allen

    Comment by Allen | March 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Return to the enumerated powers and the original intent of our Constitution. Our Constitution was based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible. [I have papers on this.] While it was not perfect (it was, after all written by fallen men), it still was a 5,000 year miracle.
      But before we can restore our Constitutional Republic and Constitution, We The People must trouble ourselves to learn it. WE were to be the “natural guardians of the Constitution”. WE failed, b/c we stopped learning and enforcing our founding documents. WE have no idea what it says; and so WE elected to public offices people who also had no idea what it says.
      I have several papers on the so-called “balanced budget” amendment – you can find them by going to my home page and clicking on the category “balanced budget amendment”.

      But it may be too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. There is a heavy price to pay for what we have done; and absent divine intervention, I fear we are going to pay it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2014 | Reply

  10. Dear Ms. Publius Huldah

    Sorry for the delay in response. Anyhow I’m not going to try and match you on wit about Constitutionality. I know the differences between State and Federal powers and enumerated and usurp. We can go round and round on our beliefs and yet nothing will be accomplished. The issue I had with the original post was that you took two sentences and downplayed a lifetime of accomplishments. See Mr. Farris is an action guy, he actually gets out and tries to do something. Unfortunately there are too many of your types who have spent this country into oblivion and believe criticizing change is going to help the situation. Yourself, the Birchers, and Eagle Forum are old bones who have no new ideas just feckless criticism. How about this, I admit you are a “Constitution wiz kid and I cannot keep up”. See when I went to public schools the idea was to pass us through grasping the concept and not worrying about the details. Same thing over my military career. I had a commander tell me, “Allen if you have 70% of the answer you had damn well make a decision, waiting for 100% is too late.” But you all work differently, you all analyze what every “and” or “but” means and have know new solutions. So how about this. If you are so against an Article V Convention then what is your answer to our; we will keep it simple and to one topic “deficit spending?”

    Allen

    Comment by Allen | March 3, 2014 | Reply

    • Allen,
      1. You would be quite wrong if you accuse me of taking social security, medicare, or any other unconstitutional benefit. While it is true that I am old (as you so tactfully pointed out); not one penny have I taken – although I was forced to pay in. It is important not to accuse people of things when you have no evidence to support your accusations.

      2. I wrote about Michael Farris’ “parental rights” amendment – and I told the truth about what it actually does. The federal government now has no lawful authority over children, education, etc. Any powers which it now exercises are usurped powers and unconstitutional. My point is that Farris’ “parental rights” amendment actually delegates power over children to the federal government. And his followers need to understand that. Mr. Farris certainly understands what his “parental rights” amendment does, and I suggest that he is misleading his followers when he claims that his amendment “protects” parental rights.

      3. You would also be quite wrong if you accuse me of bringing about this monstrous unconstitutional debt. I have been the voice crying in the wilderness for a long time. You again make assumptions when you have no evidence to support them.
      And as I have made quite clear in my most recent papers (posted on the home page of my website), it is the enumerated powers which comprise the list of objects on which Congress has lawful authority to spend money. We have the crushing debt b/c the federal government – and The States – have (for the last 100 years) ignored the limits which the Constitution places on federal spending.

      You need not apologize for any delay in answering. There is no race. The important thing is to Think & Reflect.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2014 | Reply

  11. Homeschooling is the least governmental influenced method of educating the youth in this country. Unfortunately there are dirt bag parents whom do not have the best interest of their children. Prisons are full of these people. “Highest order or not otherwise served” sets terminology of extreme circumstances. This terminology would protect the parents where as there would be something to interpret. Today the parents rights are decided by unelected bureaucrats and social workers. They determine on a whim of what excepted parenthood consists. Why should individuals who want to educate their own children be subject to paying taxes to educate others. Who decided that a Department of Education is something that was to be managed by the Government. Where is that in the Constitution? Now we have to deal with Government sponsored Health Care. Where is that in the Constitution? Every power is listed and itemized; really!

    Comment by Allen | March 1, 2014 | Reply

    • We must start with the basics:

      1. We must distinguish between the federal & state governments. Look at this one page chart which illustrates the distinction: http://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf
      2. Then, respecting the federal government, we must distinguish between delegated (enumerated) powers, and usurped powers. Under our Constitution, the federal government now has no delegated powers over “education”, “children”, etc. Read thru Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16: That is the list of most of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large. [Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1 & 2 address how Congress is to get the funds to carry out its enumerated powers.]

      You must grasp the above before you can proceed further.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2014 | Reply

  12. Michael Farris started the Home School Legal Defense Fund back in the eighties. There would not be homeschooling in this country today if not for Mr. Farris. So why would he propose an amendment to put government control on children? He also is the Founder and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College. One of the few colleges in this country that takes zero government dollars. So again why government control. I will forward this to Mr. Farris so he can deal with you and your slanderous blog. You have the freedom of speech but that does not give you the right to lie and degrade someones name. Where did you go to school and how many government dollars did you sux up doing so?

    Get your facts straight: There is a big difference between a Constitutional Convention and a Convention of States. Article V clearly states AMENDMENTS! Which have to be ratified by 3/4 of all states. Since your history and political savvy are so bad I imagine your math is no better. That would be 38 or to help you out 13 would have to say NAY!

    Comment by Allen | March 1, 2014 | Reply

    • Allen,
      I have a novel idea: Instead of uncritically accepting what Farris tells you, and spewing bile on those who critique his work; why not learn how to think for yourself? I’ll show you how critical thinking is done:

      Here is the text of Farris’ PRA which I wrote about a while ago here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/parental-rights-amendment/

      “SECTION 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

      SECTION 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.

      SECTION 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

      SECTION 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

      SECTION 5: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

      1) What do you understand Section 3 to mean? Tell me in your own words.

      2) Where does the Constitution presently delegate to the federal government power over children? Please cite Article, Section, and clause. Remember! Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only – i.e., every power WE delegated to the federal government is actually listed – itemized – in the Constitution. Where is power over children now listed as one of the powers delegated to the federal government?

      Do you see?

      After you have figured this out – we can move to the next issue you raised.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2014 | Reply

      • Ms. Publius Huldah

        Have not finished reading the posts mentioned in the last blog and I plan on doing so. But I need to emphasis my original point and the timeliness of this could not have been better. I’m sure Mr. Farris’s intent is not as you posted and as he replied. This is a man who makes a difference and does not sit around picking apart words. Just to let you know I have never met or spoken with Mr. Farris. I am however performing volunteer work for one of his organizations.

        http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/stunning-turn-of-events-for-persecuted-homeschoolers/

        V/R

        Allen

        Comment by Allen | March 7, 2014 | Reply

        • Allen,
          We don’t know why the obama administration intervened and allowed the family to stay even thou they lost in court.
          And we can not properly speculate.

          Farris’ “parental rights” amendment delegates power over children to the federal government – this is a power which the federal government does not now have. And he is not being truthful about it. You also might find this informative: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/parental-rights-god-given-and-unalienable-or-government-granted-and-revocable/

          He is also not being truthful about a number of things he is saying about an Article V convention. I have several papers showing this.

          I suppose it is possible that he has been visited with a delusion and does not understand that the things he says about his “parental rights” amendment and an Art. V convention are not true. I do not know what goes on in his head.

          But the lesson for us is that we must NOT put our Faith in People! We must use our own heads and demand proof!

          I am glad that the German Family may stay. But we don’t know why they were allowed to stay.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 7, 2014 | Reply

        • http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/140311

          Allen, Read the attached by Alan Keyes on this decision: This is a victory for tyranny: There is now federal court precedent from which one can argue that parents have no right to home school their children [b/c under the German Constitution, they don't!]. But it will be forgotten that this case dealt with Germans. Now, Farris can triumphantly waive his PRA around as the only hope for homeschooling parents [watch & see if he does this]. And so parents who do NOT understand federal court jurisprudence will be manipulated into pushing for Farris’ PRA – Which IN FACT does delegate power over children to the federal government. So the end result of all this is that Our Constitution will look more like the German Constitution – b/c with Farris’ PRA, children will be put under the control of the federal government.
          Americans are being tricked into surrendering their rights.

          Again, I ask that you lay aside everything you believe about Farris and just read and ponder the text of his proposed “parental rights” amendment. Think about what it actually does. NOT what Farris says it does – but what the actual words of his amendment say.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2014 | Reply

  13. Dear Publiush Huldah,

    Thank you for sharing! My question has to do with the rule of man vs. rule of law.

    By removing man i.e., (a Monarch) and replacing it with law i.e., (The U.S. Constitution), society made an evolutionary leap forward.

    Does the Constitution provide for or is it possible to limit Congress from creating laws which require the use of initiatory force? Such as income tax, gun laws, etc… agenda laws and political policy regulations? The Laws of our Land were meant to control the law makers, were they not?

    By interpreting, creating, and enforcing new laws our government has taken back the rule of man.

    Best regards,

    Paul

    Comment by Paul MacKinnon | February 27, 2014 | Reply

    • You are right: Our Constitution was unique b/c it replaced the Rule of Man [monarchs are the "law" and they do whatever they want b/c their word is "law"] with the Rule of LAW [civil government is limited by the law which is transcendent to the civil authorities and to which they must comply]. See http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/rule-of-law/

      Our Framers expected WE THE PEOPLE to enforce the Constitution and uphold the Rule of Law embodied therein by throwing out of office all politicians who violated it.

      WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who failed to carry out our sacred mission. We refused to even trouble our precious little selves to learn our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

      And so, there is going to be hell to pay.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 27, 2014 | Reply

  14. Please, I would like to hear your take on both Monetary Sovereignty as expressed by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell and on Modern Monetary Theory as described by the economics faculty at the University of Missouri – Kansas City. I am new to your blog so if you have opined on these before would you please direct me to your post(s) on them? Thanks.

    Comment by gatlinbiographer | February 13, 2014 | Reply

  15. I just recently read your article, “What Criminal Laws are Congress authorized to make.” I seem to recall that there is a Supreme Court case that in effect states, maybe it’s in a footnote, that congressional acts are presumed to be constitutional. Which case was that?

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | February 5, 2014 | Reply

    • That is standard legal doctrine – it is everywhere. Anytime the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the statute goes before the court “clothed with a presumption of constitutionality”. The plaintiff has the burden of showing the statute is unconstitutional.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2014 | Reply

  16. Thank you again for responding. I just read your article “Vattel” and in it you go to great detail in explaining what the founders meant by being a “natural born citizen.” As Dr. Vieira has often written, militia and dollar are also not defined in the constitution because everyone in that time knew exactly what their meaning was. You also bring up the birther issue and how the Supreme Court might think that it was a political issue so it wasn’t one for them to decide. If Obama is indeed ineligible for lack of being a natural born citizen wouldn’t that take this whole issue out of the political realm? The two measures listed in the constitution for removal are for an actual president and not a possible usurper. As Dr. Vieira wrote in his article “Obama must stand up now or step down” (10-29-08) it would appear that this might yet become a judicial question:

    First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

    Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

    Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

    [w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

    The question then being, is he the president or a usurper. The hottest of hot potatoes ever. Rubio, Cruz and Jindal want to know.

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 26, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes, amazingly, I am familiar with the arguments that he can’t be impeached b/c he is not really President.

      Perhaps this will help: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/impeachment/

      And do not overlook this critical FACT: The federal courts have already – and repeatedly – refused to remove him. So now what do you propose? What’s left? Cite Article, Section, and clause.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2013 | Reply

  17. Thanks for replying to my comment. I have a question regarding federal jurisdiction of the courts. Where did the concept of standing come from? If they may hear only cases: *** a) Arising under the Constitution,” but nothing is said about standing. It would seem that it keeps a great number of cases dealing with violations from being brought to the federal courts.

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 26, 2013 | Reply

    • Why “Standing” is a necessary doctrine:

      Say you never mow your lawn, your yard is filled with junk cars and old tires. I file a law suit against you to force you to clean up your yard! Your lawyer will file a motion to dismiss my lawsuit for “lack of standing”. Why? B/c your yard doesn’t affect me! So one purpose of the “standing requirement” is to protect people from meddlesome busybodies.
      Now it is true, that mosquitoes hatched in your yard might fly over to my yard and bite me and give me a disease; but that could be said of everybody in the country. So in order to have standing to file a lawsuit against you to force you to clean up your yard, the plaintiff must be directly affected by your sloth. Your neighbors would have standing.

      Let’s look at the birther actions filed in federal court. Every action has been dismissed for “lack of standing”; and the supreme Court has declined to reverse these dismissals. Why? I am not privy to what goes on in their deliberations; but they may be of the view that obama’s eligibility is not an issue for them to decide. The fact is, the Constitution provides only TWO methods of getting rid of a President against his will: Impeachment & conviction by Congress, and removal via the 25th Amendment (Sec. 4). Our Constitution does not delegate to the federal courts power to remove a President. So obama’s eligibility is really a “political question” and the remedy is a “political one”: impeachment & removal by Congress; or removal via Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment.

      We don’t want the federal courts deciding “political questions”!

      “Political questions” is a term of art having to do with the structure of the government into 3 branches. The judicial branch is the “legal” branch; the Legislative & Executive branches are the “political” branches. Our Constitution delegates to those two branches alone the power to remove a president! The legislative branch is empowered to remove a president by impeachment; and the Executive Branch is empowered to remove him via Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment. So it is for the “political branches” of the federal government to handle. This may be the thinking of the supreme Court on these birther cases.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 26, 2013 | Reply

  18. I just recently found your website and think it’s great. I had the extreme pleasure of meeting and speaking with Dr. Vieira several years ago and have all his writings. Might I suggest an amendment to the Constitution that I think, in my humble opinion, would help things out?
    Art. I, sec. 9 includes: No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from , one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.
    This ssay that the government can’t favor one over another. So here is my idea.
    How about an amendment that states:
    No preference shall be given to any individual, business, corporation or region of the country over another.

    Comment by Klaus P. Lindner | December 23, 2013 | Reply

    • Tinkering with our Constitution is very dangerous. Your proposed amendment would vastly increase the powers of the federal government. It would permit the federal government to do whatever they wanted to do as long as they treated all individuals, businesses, corporations or regions the same.

      We must understand this: ALL THE POWERS WHICH WE THE PEOPLE DELEGATED TO EACH BRANCH OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE “ENUMERATED” – LISTED – ITEMIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

      If you will read the Constitution, you will see this. You can also refer to my 3 papers on the Enumerated Powers of Congress, President, and Federal Courts.

      The Constitution always delegated powers over ports – dock-Yards – to Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause): In fact, Congress has general legislative powers over ports (dock-Yards). Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 6 is a limitation on that general power by requiring the federal government to treat all the ports fairly.

      But the Constitution does NOT grant to Congress a general legislative power over “individuals”, “businesses”, “corporations”, or “regions”. Congress has NO JURISDICTION OVER THESE OBJECTS!

      But your proposed amendment would delegate to the federal government general legislative powers over them – the only restriction would be that the federal government would have to treat them all “fairly”.

      Do you see? We can not understand the consequences of a proposed amendment unless we FULLY understand the Constitution as it already exists and how the proposed amendment would change it.

      Let me know if you have any questions – this is of critical importance.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 25, 2013 | Reply

  19. Excellent article, thank you for writing it.

    Having read Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments,” it occurred to me that those of the federal government are not keeping the tenets of the US Constitution or their oath to abide by it as it is written today; what would be accomplished by simply adding to the list of provisions (Amendments) that Congress, the courts and POTUS could ignore?

    As the federal government, unchecked, becomes increasingly out of control I find myself embracing the “Debt of Honor” scene depicted in a Tom Clancy book of that title. Hopefully, that is an event that will not come to pass, but it is becoming increasingly attractive in the face of government people not being held accountable for their treacherous violations of the limited government design or our Constitution.

    Comment by Emmette Boone | December 6, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Emmette; and God help us, and preserve us from the untimely death I fear that hero-patriot Tom Clancey suffered.

      I have been unsuccessful in getting those who have jumped on Mark Levin’s bandwagon to understand what you said in your second paragraph. You said it so well. Perhaps if we repeat it enough it will get through!

      I would just add to it that the State governments have been as big violators as all 3 branches of the federal government. The States LOVE all those unconstitutional programs when grant money & federal funding is attached.

      So, please post the second paragraph of your comment wherever you see the bandwagon jumpers ooohing & ahhing over how a “convention of States” will fix everything.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2013 | Reply

  20. Thank you so so much for taking the time for me and my concerns. Ever since grad school I have lacked this kind of discussion in my life. I will watch the LOTR-extended version when I get back from my road trip next week.

    The difference between you and I is not just your knowledge of the constitution and workings of the courts and branches of government but your optimism as well.

    Comment by Jeff Baird | October 22, 2013 | Reply

    • I watch and think about LOTR often. There is so much to see there – you can see the outworking of Providence in everything which happens.

      Stay in touch!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 23, 2013 | Reply

  21. Wow. Thank you for the clarification.
    I would never have understood that without the force-feeding. So all the lawsuits were in themselves exercises in futility. I hope at least Alabama establishes the presidency is illegitimate and some repercussions come of that. But I see nothing but hopelessness ahead.

    I hate politicians, affirmative action, and reverse bigotry.

    Comment by Jeff Baird | October 22, 2013 | Reply

    • No, I think the lawsuits were valuable in that they educated many of The People about how obama is a fraud, how the democrat party is criminal, how the republican party is filled with unprincipled cowards, how the establishment conservatives are weak sissies, and that WE THE PEOPLE must disassociate ourselves from those who have pretended to be on our side but are not.

      Judge Roy Moore is a good man with a spine. What we need now is good manly men with spines who are guided by God.

      Do not despair. There is always hope! Our Country needs a cleansing and I see one coming.

      Here is your homework assignment: Watch Lord of the Rings – extended version if you can. Then you will be encouraged and you will see that there is always hope and than even the littlest person can change the course of the world.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 22, 2013 | Reply

  22. Thank you so much for your reply. I guessed as much. (In regard to no remedy being offered by the courts.)
    Your response begs the question:
    “Who does have standing in this rat-infested sh*thole, Kenyans and welfare recipients?”

    Comment by Jeff Baird | October 22, 2013 | Reply

    • “Begging the question” is a logical fallacy which is made when one assumes as true that which he is tasked to prove.

      I did not commit that fallacy [nor any others]. I am the Logic Queen.

      I thought the answer was clear: No one has “standing” to sue to remove the President from office. The Constitution provides only 4 methods of removing a President: Death, resignation, impeachment, or pursuant to Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment. See my paper on Impeachment. You can find it under the Category – “Impeachment”.

      The Constitution does not give Courts power to remove presidents.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 22, 2013 | Reply

  23. I read with great interest your article about the Natural Born Citizen issue RE our illegitimate president.

    And I am hopeful that there may be some remedy in Alabama.

    But what exactly is the issue(s) there and what would be the effect?

    As Pelosi (and others) was part of the fraud, will she (and others) suffer any consequences?

    How did this Fraud occur in the first place? I just don’t get it. False names/birth certificates/SSN…the guy is really the Manchurian candidate.

    And why has the Supreme Court done nothing.

    I’m not an attorney.

    Comment by Jeff Baird | October 17, 2013 | Reply

    • Sorry to be so long in answering – but I have been at the 10th Amendment Center’s Nullify Now! Rally in Raleigh, N.C. It was a great event.

      First of all, a number of cases challenging obama’s eligibility have been filed in various federal courts; and ALL such cases have been dismissed for “lack of standing” on the part of the plaintiffs. The various Circuit Courts of Appeal have affirmed the dismissals, and the supreme Court has refused to hear any of the cases. So, plaintiffs have LOST every case they filed in federal court.

      I have not read any of the papers filed in the Alabama litigation so don’t know what the precise issues are. However, I understand it also addresses obama’s ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS for the reason that he is not a “natural born citizen”. Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court is one of the best judges in our Land – so I expect him to write an honest and correct Opinion.

      But even if the Alabama Supreme Court rules that obama is not eligible – I don’t see what effect it could have. It would NOT result in his removal from office – unless the cowards, wusses & wimps whom we send to Congress found the spine to impeach, try, convict, and remove that fraudulent president.

      At first, I faulted the supreme Court for not hearing the birther cases. But finally it dawned upon me that federal courts are not vested with authority to remove a President from office! The Constitution provides the methods for getting rid of a sitting President: Impeachment (by Congress); removal via Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment; resignation or death. That’s it! The courts have no power to remove the President from office.

      How did we get a fraud in the white house? B/c everyone dropped the ball. No one with a bully pulpit had the guts to bring it up when he ran the first time. The media failed to do their job. The Democrats probably knowingly perpetrated this fraud on us. But no one cared b/c obama was black and “cool” and everyone was afraid to say anything bad about a black man. The PHONY CONSERVATIVES (Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachman, Glen Beck, etc.) didn’t say anything b/c they were all “in love” with the phony Marco Rubio [who is also ineligible] and they didn’t care that obama was ineligible just as they don’t care that rubio, Cruz, and Jindal, etc. are ineligible.

      We will have to let God deal with Pelosi, etc. Technically, democrats who falsely certified that obama was eligible could be prosecuted, BUT we’d have to first clean house in the DOJ and fire and replace all the US Attorneys.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 22, 2013 | Reply

  24. Dear Publius-Hulda:

    Re: Enforcement of the Constitution(s) versus “Amendment V”

    Today’s false-swearing Public Officers, men who swear oaths to support the federal and state Constitutions, have rarely, if ever, even read the documents they are bound by and to.

    Public Officers routinely, as a matter of course, deny, defy, disparage, deride, ignore, trample upon, and denigrate the federal and state Constitutions.

    Why would anybody think an amendment to the federal Constitution would mean diddly-squat to false-swearing public officers? Why would false-swearing public officers obey a new page, paragraph, section, clause, or even a single sentence?

    This writer knows of only two men in Congress who, over the past fifty years, have honored their oath and voted pursuant to their oath. The first question they always asked is: “Is this bill constitutional?” If anyone claims there were more than these two men, then produce their voting record.

    What should become a textbook case on Constitution trashing by corrupt and false-swearing public officers is revealed on a new website, http://www.OzaukeeMOB.org. No “Amendment” to the Constitution would faze these “typical” public officers in the least.

    A massive federal lawsuit dubbed the “800 Lb Gorilla” exposed the false-swearing Public Officers of “The Ozaukee County MOB”, and the legal cesspool of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin.

    Why do public officers lie, cheat and steal? Short Answer: They lost their moral compass.
    Why do they cover up crimes of other Public Officers? Answer: Moral turpitude.
    And no amount of “ethics” taught in today’s Law Schools will rectify the want of morality.

    Public Officers are Trustees of the Public Trust. They owe the utmost fidelity to the Constitutions to which they swore an oath. Their only lawful purpose is to protect the rights of the people to life, liberty, and property.

    Website Executive Summary: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/prologue.html

    Learn what the courts say about the duties and liabilities of Public Officers by reading and then sharing the Memorandum of Law, Exhibit “O” (Word or Pdf formats). http://www.ozaukeemob.org/exhibit-o-memorandum-of-law.html

    If you were illegally, unlawfully, viciously swatted out of your home by false-swearing public officers, as Steve Magritz and his wife were, you too would appreciate the necessity of public officers honoring and obeying their sworn oath to support the state and federal Constitutions.

    If the life’s work of both you and your parents was stolen at gunpoint under false pretenses and turned into a County park without paying you a dime, you too would demand public officers observe the utmost fidelity to the Constitutions, which prohibit such lawlessness.

    The lawless Sheriff, Maury Straub, recently announced his “retirement”. http://www.ozaukeemob.org/lawless-sheriff.html

    Ozaukee County Corporation Counsel, Dennis Kenealy, forced to resign. http://www.ozaukeemob.org/shyster-resigns.html

    Corrupt officers of the court: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/ corrupt-judges-da–attys.html.

    Corrupt “Judge” Sandy A. Williams repeatedly commits misprision of felony: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/evil-sandy-a-williams.html

    District Attorney Adam Y. Gerol retaliates against a victim of crime: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/evil-adam-y-gerol.html

    “Judge” Andrew T. Gonring commits insurrection to the Constitution on the record: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/mt-andrew-t-gonring.html

    Hear the Chairman of the County Board threaten a KRLA Investigative Reporter: http://www.ozaukeemob.org/reprobate-gus-wirth.html

    Read about the VCY America and A.G. / Governor James E. Doyle connection.

    Independent Investigative Reporter radio broadcasts of interviews with MOB members, and MUCH, MUCH more at: http://www.OzaukeeMOB.org

    The bottom line is: Enforce the Constitution by suing the dishonest Public Officer individually for breach of the Public Trust. Shove the Constitution down their collectivist throats and up their keesters until they honor and obey their oath. And, remove them from office with quo warranto.

    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. — Thomas Jefferson.

    Comment by John Adams VII | October 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Well, Dear,

      I expect you are promoting this web site – I can not approve it b/c I don’t have time to read it. So I don’t know if all that it says is true. But yes, public officials trample all over our Constitution every day. And why is this? B/c the people who elect them are clueless about the Constitution.

      It is very sad that the American People are so ignorant and morally blind that they elect – and relect – public officials who don’t know the Constitution. But the People who elect them don’t know it.

      We do not enforce the Constitution by suing public officials! Why would you trust this to the courts to decide? The courts are corrupt!

      We do not enforce the Constitution by filing quo warranto actions against public officials! Why would you trust this to the courts to decide? The courts are corrupt.

      It is very sad that people focus on mythical “remedies” instead of doing what they need to do: Learn our Founding Principles and prepare for the extreme unpleasantness which is ahead for us. Litigation is complex and not for amateurs.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2013 | Reply

  25. Dear Publius Huldah:

    May I suggest that before you attack my credibility as a constitutional scholar that you actually read my work on the subject of Article V? Almost all the points you make are dealt with in my various publications, including Madison’s letters and comments, the role of Founding Era custom, Eagle Forum’s questions (based on a 1979 article by liberal professor Lawrence Tribe)m the Founders’ understanding and subsequent practice. A list of publications is available at http://constitution.i2i.org/about.

    Passion can be great, but it is destructive unless based on facts.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Natelson
    Professor of Law (ret.)
    The University of Montana

    Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence
    The Independence Institute

    Comment by Rob Natelson | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Now where did I attack your credibility? I just pointed out that you didn’t prove your claims by cites to our Framers in the article Mark Levin cited as authority in his book.

      Shouldn’t we all be prepared to prove our assertions? It’s no insult to point it out when people don’t. They should just supply the proof, if they have it. If not, well, then ….

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  26. Hi PH, Congressman Danny Davis thinks he has the power to enact a substantial tax on guns and ammo. He believes Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gives him the authority. H.R.3018 is the proposed bill. He ignores his enumerated powers and the bill of rights. Apparently he doesn’t see a 50% tax on ammo and a 20% tax on guns as an infringement. Its just unbelievable what some congressman try to do. Supreme court Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that the power to tax is necessarily the power to destroy.

    Comment by Spense | August 26, 2013 | Reply

    • Hi, Spense!

      Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1 does grant to Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, Imposts and Excises”. Hamilton wrote Federalist Papers No. 30-36 to explain the taxing powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. I’ve read them and highlighted them, but haven’t had time to write up a paper about them.

      So there are two considerations here with respect to federal taxation of guns and ammo:

      1. Congress does have the constitutional authority to levy taxes on articles of commerce. The Whiskey Tax was one of the first. There was a tax on carriages, I think. The idea was that the objects of federal taxation would be judiciously chosen so as not to oppress the poor, etc. So this is the idea behind “luxury taxes” and “sin taxes” (alcohol & tobacco); whereas “necessaries” (milk, bread, peanut butter) were, as a matter of policy only, to be left free of taxation.

      But it was always understood that Congress would tax ONLY TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT ITS ENUMERATED POWERS! May Congress lawfully levy a tax on whiskey in order to fund the military? YES! Since Congress has the power to raise and support an army and navy (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 12 & 13).

      May Congress lawfully levy a tax on whiskey in order to provide public housing for the poor? NO! B/c housing for the poor is not an enumerated power delegated to Congress.

      So, Hamilton says in, e.g., Federalist No. 31 (5th para):

      “A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.” [boldface mine]

      2. Does the 2nd Amendment prohibit Congress from taxing guns and ammo? The Federalist Papers, of course, do not address the amendments. I haven’t researched the writings of our Framers to see if they wrote on whether Congress could levy taxes on guns and ammo. So we are left with our own Reason & Judgement as guided by the Principles of Our Constitution.

      A 50% tax – a 20% tax – on articles of commerce strongly suggest a deliberate policy of discouraging purchases of the articles so taxed.

      Would a tax of 1% or a flat fee of 5 cents per item constitute an infringement?

      I could certainly argue the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing ANY TAX at all on guns & ammo. And, of course, ANY TAX at all is unlawful if the revenue so collected is to be spent on unconstitutional objects.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2013 | Reply

      • Hi PH, I certainly agree with you all taxation is infringement….. when you consider that the framers wanted all to have the right to keep & bears arms for the main purpose of defense from a usurping government, then simple logic says they would consider taxes on guns & ammo, infringement. When the framers deemed the second amendment important enough to include in the b/r’s; with their declaratory and restrictive clauses aimed at the federal gov’t (preamble to the b/r’s) it’s obvious to me they intended no taxes be placed on arms, ever. In point of fact, how could you propose a tax on any constitutionally protected right? Would they dare tax us if we didn’t allow a soldier to quartered in our homes during time of peace. What about search & seizure, what if they tried to collect a $50/yr tax to secure that right , so it is not infringed. They wouldn’t dare… neither should they dare infringe our right to keep & bear arms with any taxation.

        Comment by Spense | August 27, 2013 | Reply

        • excellent argument! write it up!

          I’m coming to Decatur in late April 2014!

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 27, 2013 | Reply

          • Thanks Mom! And I will…. and am looking forward to it!

            Comment by Spense | August 28, 2013

  27. Happy 4th of July PH! Did you happen to see what Illinois’ U.S. Senator (a Lawyer) Dick Durbin wrote in the Chicago Tribune about defining journalists? It will take your breath away. Here is a part of it “Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech, But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.” So he thinks the federal gov’t gets to define our constitutionally protected rights; WOW! Defining a journalist is quite simple, a journalist is one who gathers information for public consumption. Why do i smell a redefinition of the word journalist and a redefining of our constitutionally protected rights to a free press from this tyrant.

    Comment by Spense | July 4, 2013 | Reply

  28. PH, I wish the majority opinion morons on SCOTUS had read your paper on the 14th amendment… about what the due process and equal protection clauses really mean before rendering their uninformed opinion on DOMA. It’s despicable the way they write law from the bench!

    Comment by Spense | June 26, 2013 | Reply

    • Spense, it is disheartening. It is the blind leading the blind. But law students get programmed, and they become unable to step away from the herd. I expect it never enters their heads to think independently. They regurgitate the prevailing dogma. They chant rubbish and don’t even know it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 26, 2013 | Reply

      • “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government [SCOTUS] becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” – Justice Louis D. Brandeis

        Comment by Spense | June 27, 2013 | Reply

  29. Hi PH, no question today, I just wanted to post a pertinent quote from Jefferson. I pray you’re doing well.

    “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

    –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 1823

    Comment by Spense | June 25, 2013 | Reply

    • Jefferson is right. Man is corrupt and The People are not vigilant. When, in 1819, the supreme Court approved Congress’ chartering a national bank (McCulloch v. Maryland), Congress should have impeached & removed from the bench all justices who voted with the majority.

      It is NOT TRUE to say that federal judges have “lifetime appointments”. They serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1); and may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para). I used to listen to Mark Levin, but his constant refrains about how federal judges have “lifetime appointments”, turned me off. [Also, I avoid people who just "love" marco rubio.]

      The People should have “fired” all Representatives who voted for the national bank.

      The State legislatures should have fired all U.S. Senators who voted for the national bank.

      But evil whispers in our ears: “Oh, they are on your side most of the time, so give them a pass on this one little thing”. That is what RINOS tell me when I criticize R’s for their violations of the Constitution.

      And people put their own personal interests above Principles.

      The children really do pay for the sins of their Fathers.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 25, 2013 | Reply

      • Violations of the constitution are criminal…. and they want us to overlook that “little thing”? I think I see the problem. IMMORALITY!

        Comment by Spense | June 26, 2013 | Reply

  30. Publius, you are worth your weight in gold! God bless you and I thank you for your patriotic service. Keep up the good work!

    Comment by David McElroy | June 22, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, David!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 22, 2013 | Reply

  31. Dear Publius Huldah, Hi! I didn’t know you existed until last night! I am SO grateful to have found you and your messages about our Constitution and how to stop the Islamic Muslim agenda from growing in our country! I have been very worried about the current trend of watching our current government pave the way for more and more of these people to move to America, all the while feeling helpless and hopeless in not knowing what can be done to stop it. I see the extreme, urgent need in stopping these people NOW. I will do whatever I can possibly do to learn myself about how to stop these people AND to teach others how to do the same.

    I watched your video titled, “Publius Huldah Explains Why Islamists Don’t Have the Right to Build Mosques, Proselytize Or Institute Sharia Law In America”. Invaluable! I consider myself to have joined your team. I do have some questions for you. First, how do you pronounce Publius Huldah? When I say your name aloud to others I want to be sure to use the correct pronunciation. I did read briefly above why you are using this name. This leads me to my second question. Do you ever share your real name with the public? If so, what is it?

    In moving forward with our plan :) , I see the need to reach as many people in America as possible to help us defeat the Islamic Muslim agenda. I believe that it is important that we do not offend the Hispanics who live here, because many of them are Christians as well, and we need them on our team. I am a Caucasion Christian, but I do have some Hispanic friends who are not yet American citizens. They are so loving and kind, and they want peace here in America, just as you and I do. I feel concerned about your statement that said, in so many words, that the Mexican culture is a criminal culture. This blanket statement might alienate the good and kind Mexicans who are living in our country from joining our team against the Islamic Muslim movement. It appears that our criminal justice system deals with crimes committed by all nationalities in our country EXCEPT for often the Islamic Muslim people.

    I plan to try to recruit Americans who are not Christians, to join our team, as well. I also plan to try to recruit Americans who are multiculturists. I see the Islamic Muslim agenda in America as being a huge threat to all of us, even though many do not see the threat yet. I plan to make it clear to non-Christians and to multiculturists that I am not asking for any of them to become Christian. I plan to tell them that by using statements in the Bible to prove our rights and by pushing our States to enforce what our Constitution says in the First Amendment is the ONLY way to prevent our country from being taken over by the Islamic Muslim agenda, and that we all have to work together on this. I plan to explain to them that when they try to recruit others to join our team that it is OK for them to begin their speeches with “I am not a Christian, but it is fact that our country was founded and developed on Christian principals. We must use America’s Christian documents in order to push our States and our people to train all Islamic Muslim’s who live in America what the rules are that they must follow in order to remain in our country, and that if they do not follow these rules, then they will be made to leave our country.” -Something like that.

    I would like to talk with you on a regular basis as we move forward in trying to control the Islamic Muslim people in America. I do have your email address. However, my current email address is with AOL, and it bothers me greatly that the US Government is now monitoring AOL emails. I plan to change my email address and use a company who is not being monitored by the Government. Do you have any idea about which companies are not being monitored? I look forward to talking with you.

    Comment by Kacey Dahmen | June 10, 2013 | Reply

    • We must always distinguish between “race” and “culture”. God made the races – it is not for us to say that one race is “better” than another.

      But man makes cultures. American Culture, from its founding, was based on the Bible. That’s why American culture was The Best in the history of mankind. It wasn’t perfect, b/c man is fallen; but it was the best ever. But that once great Culture is long gone.

      Mexican culture has long been characterized by criminality. Truth offends some people. The issue you must face is: What is more important? Telling the Truth – or not “offending” people?

      I am saying that one of the problems of our time is that, as a people, we place “not offending people” ABOVE telling the TRUTH!

      Ask your Mexican friends, “Why did you leave Mexico?”

      So, I am suggesting that you reconsider your basic presuppositions.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 12, 2013 | Reply

  32. Our real dilemma with the Constitution is finding a way to stop our Elected Criminals in Washington from violating it with impunity. Sadly, this has been going on for many, many years. Now, there seems not to be the least concern by our lawmakers and administrators about violating the Constitution.

    Comment by 1SG Bud Parker, USA, Retired | April 30, 2013 | Reply

  33. Hi PH:
    I was just turned on to you by a friend of a friend this evening. Maybe we’re related (tee hee). I love your stuff.
    If you find yourself in Kansas City, I’d be honored to buy you dinner…or a drink…or coffee…whatever.
    Sleep good.
    Publius50

    Comment by James Madison | April 29, 2013 | Reply

    • Well, I revere our Framers; and all I do is show what THEY said and apply it to our problems of today.

      Thank you for your kind words, Publius50!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 30, 2013 | Reply

  34. Dear PB

    I know I’m completely out of place, writing to you simply because I’m not an American, I don’t live in America but I believe in the country and I believe it is God given. I have never heard of you until today. Freedom Outpost, to which I subscribe, showed an article on you, which I read. That in itself was surprisingly thorough and bold but the video on you explaining yourself simply knocked me off my feet. I decided to find out who Plaubius Huldah is. Admittedly it’s a rather unique name. Funny that there doesn’t seem to be a Wiki entry on this person though (maybe I missed it or it didn’t appear at the top of the search list) but I went to the WordPress blog. And I’m left stunned in total disbelief at the depth of your work.

    I admire you greatly. I am a Malaysian although I have lived in Australia for 23 years. I’ve seen liberalism at work in government AND in churches and it’s only recently that I realised how much so many of us were hoodwinked by labels such as multiculturalism. The second victory by Obama was more than we could stomach even in Malaysia – we had pinned our hopes on a Republican return but alas, it was not to be.

    I am a strong Christian and in our church, we do include America in our prayers. We believe that God has touched your great country to do great work. I pray that you and all those who are similar in strength of spirit and vigorous in evicting Islamisation will succeed. I’m not very optimistic unfortunately but I do see your point – if the federal government doesn’t do anything, the states can. I like that. Thank you for your tremendous wisdom. You have so much on your site that I don’t even know where to begin to read but I have bookmarked it.

    You are a gift from God. Truly, justly and most favourably. Do keep up the good work. May God bless America.

    Regards

    Khen Lim

    Comment by Khen Lim | April 12, 2013 | Reply

    • My dear Khen,
      Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words! You are not out of place at all! I am thrilled to hear from you.

      “Publius” is for the pen name Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay used when they wrote The Federalist Papers in 1787-1788. These papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution for the United States to the American People and induce them to ratify it.

      “Huldah” is for the prophet at 2 Kings 22. Then, as now, the Law had been lost for a long time – I am trying to restore it.

      During the late 19th century, the philosophy of Pragmatism (William James, Charles Saunders Peirce, John Dewey) arose in America. It rejected the concept of an Objective Reality with its Timeless Truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is “True”, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to the “utility” of believing it or not believing it. If it has a good result for me, it is “true”. If it has a bad result for me, it is not “true”. What is “true” for me may not be “true” for you, so an idea can be “true” for some and not “true” for others. Furthermore, what is “true” for me today may not be “true” for me tomorrow, so “truth” evolves.

      Pragmatism morphed into Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre). Existentialism rejects an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis: Humans are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making “choices” on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external Principles or Standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.

      So with both philosophies, we tossed the concept of Objective Truth – Objective Reality – Fixed Principles & Standards – out the window.

      This mindset is now almost universal.

      The result is moral relativism.

      With moral relativism, there is no basis for saying that one culture is better than another – that one political system is better than another. By what standard would one judge? There is no standard.

      So this is the philosophical basis for multiculturalism.

      So how do I explain this to People? Perhaps the easiest way is to get people to LOOK AT THE FACTS and believe what the FACTS compel them to believe. Is a culture which tortures & maims women & children really morally equivalent to a culture based on Judeo-Christian principles?

      There is a child’s story. “The Emperor Has No Clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson. People believe and repeat the most idiotic things! But “everyone” says them! It took a little child to point out the obvious, but no one had the guts to say. You can find this story on line.

      Thank you for contacting me!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 14, 2013 | Reply

  35. Hi PH… do have your chart on the General Welfare and Commerce clause posted here? You emailed it to me a few months ago, but i have somehow managed to lose or misplaced it.

    Comment by Spense | March 26, 2013 | Reply

    • I’ll email it to you in a few minutes, Spense.
      let me know if it isn’t the right chart.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 26, 2013 | Reply

      • PH…. That’s the one, thanks!

        Comment by Spense | March 26, 2013 | Reply

  36. We are fighting it in Alabama and have done a large amount of research. If someone reminds me, I will post a PDF of our work on Monday. This is one of our sources, chocked full I might add, of the cow pies contained in the Common Core play book that only wants to impose “social justice” education be damned.

    Comment by parker | March 24, 2013 | Reply

    • Publius, I hope you don’t mind my putting some information on your comment page. If so, I won’t do it again.

      Parker, we are also fighting CCSS in Michigan as well. The website http://truthinamericaneducation.com/ is a wealth of information. Join the Yahoo group and you will have information from people all over the country, from Utah to DC, to Michigan and more. Also, if you have a thick skin and love to debate the people who hate everything that is against public school education including vouchers and charter schools, subscribe to Diane Ravitch’s blog. She has some good posts and some not so good posts. She is a WordPress blog as well. http://dianeravitch.net/

      Comment by Chris J | March 25, 2013 | Reply

      • Be my guest, dear. Any time!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 25, 2013 | Reply

  37. Hi PH, I hope you’re doing well. I have a suggestion for a paper if you’re not swamped and wondering what to write about.. A very hot topic in Illinois is Common Core State Standards that the federal government has coerced onto some states. Many people don’t realize the federal government has NO lawful authority to make laws on education. They are unaware that belongs solely to the states. The Obama administration is continuing the federal government pursuit of nationalizing education and removing all state and local (ie.. parental) control from education. Many are totally ignorant of this…. parents should be scared to death of this usurpation.

    Comment by Spense | March 24, 2013 | Reply

  38. Too many people are aware of what is happening in this country and don’t know what to do about it.

    One could start by making a decision to do something about it.

    This may help!

    “A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including his life.'” – Author Unknown

    If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. — Thomas Paine

    “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” — Thomas Paine

    OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
    Click here to read full length version.

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

    1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

    2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

    3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

    4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

    5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

    6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

    7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

    8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”

    9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

    10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

    If you have never taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic … , you may do so here:

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

    The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

    We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

    Help us win it.

    Board of Directors

    Sgt. Rand Cardwell. U.S.M.C. veteran (Desert Storm). Tennessee Chapter President.

    Franklin Shook. U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam). Montana Chapter President.

    David J. Rivers U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam) Oath Keepers General Counsel, National Liaison to U.S.M.C.

    Richard Mack, Former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona

    John D. Shirley, Active Duty Peace Officer – Houston, TX.Texas Chapter President, National Liaison to Peace Officers.

    Jay Stang, Veteran US Marine Corps – Texas Chapter Executive Vice President

    SSG James Hanna (Ret), US Army, Texas 2nd VP

    CDR John C. Mackey, USNR (ret), Idaho Dist 4 Director

    Comment by Peabody | March 16, 2013 | Reply

  39. Thank you,

    Comment by Thomas Marotta | March 9, 2013 | Reply

  40. Actually I was hoping it was DVD and I could get a copy of the DVD. Please let me know if this is possible. Thank you, Tom Marotta

    Comment by Thomas Marotta | March 9, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Thomas.

      There is a way you can download it to your own computer and make your own DVD. I don’t know how it is done, but someone you know will know.

      Feel free to make your own. As many as you like. Perhaps give them as gifts along with pocket copies of Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2013 | Reply

  41. Is there anyway for me to obtain a copy of,http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/publius-huldah-shows-federal-gun-control-is-unlawful. Please let me know via email. thank You tom marotta

    Comment by Thomas Marotta | March 9, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes, I will get organized and post it or put it into a PDF so as to make the text available. Give me a few days.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2013 | Reply

  42. Will you marry me? I’m in love lady! You rock!

    Comment by R | March 8, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Ron!
      Alaska! Always wanted to go there.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 8, 2013 | Reply

      • Do you know who Tom Woods is? If you haven’t met, I think you should, I think. I didn’t think I would find another person like him but I think I have, in you.

        I just bought land there a year ago.. It has been a dream of mine since I was a kid to build a cabin and live a subsistence life.

        Anyway, I won’t take up anymore of your time, just wanted to say hello and show my appreciation. I hope you have a great day, LadyLiberty. :)

        Comment by R | March 8, 2013 | Reply

  43. … run by idiots elected by imbeciles.

    Comment by Peabody | March 4, 2013 | Reply

  44. This group has a County Sheriff Project, all contacts are in the link. http://www.rainydaypatriots.org/events/county-sherif-project

    Comment by parker | March 3, 2013 | Reply

  45. Greetings Publius-Huldah,

    First, I will assure you that I am in no way attached, or affilitated with that other “Joseph” you have had exchanges with.

    That said, I only recently saw video of your testimony in front of the TN Assembly Judiciary Committee and was(Am) astounded and inspired by your presentation. I first saw a short excerpt sent me by friends who were in the gallery, experiencing you “live”. My first thought: “When I grow up (I am 49yrs old), I want to be “Publius-Josephus”! I have communicated this to my friend, while thanking her for introducing you into my consciousness. I have subsequently viewed your entire presentation on youtube, and have come to the conclusion that you are a “National Heroine”.

    I have been studying the US Constitution, for a while now, but you have inspired me to take my study to a new level. I will now dig into your archives, and soak in all I can, as I continue.

    Blessings to you, and your mission. I pray that many join you. I certainly intend to.

    Sincerely,

    Joseph

    Comment by Joseph Newbern | March 3, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, my dear!

      So you must be a 3rd Joseph! Are you in Tennessee?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2013 | Reply

  46. I am continually amazed at just how many otherwise intelligent and knowing people have no concept about the prerequisite requirements to hold the office of President. Of course, I refer to the infamous “Natural Born Citizen” mandate. The information presented in this wonderful blog makes it remarkably easy to comprehend, yet so many of us refuse to accept it as fact.

    I suppose that those who gleefully support our present occupant of the White House will never accept the truth. However, what rationale can be used by the myraid of media wonks, Republicans, and others who oppose Mr. Obama? Is the entire Nation afraid to articulate the truth?

    Comment by Bud Parker | March 1, 2013 | Reply

    • I don’t understand it. It just seems that most people don’t care about “Truth” – they just want to believe what they already believe.

      And then, there is this: Establishment republicans are determined to cram Marco Rubio down our throats. He is NOT a NBC. So the establishment republicans don’t want to hear any of this “birther” stuff. Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, etc.,etc., all mock & ridicule us – they want Marco Rubio and don’t care whether he is eligible. So I lost all respect for those three.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 1, 2013 | Reply

      • I understand that there is functionally, little difference between the two Party organizations in Washington. Why is the Supreme Court so leery to tackle this issue?

        Comment by Bud Parker | March 2, 2013 | Reply

        • The jurisdiction of the federal courts is set forth at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. That lists the kinds of cases federal courts are permitted to hear.

          The problem you mentioned – that the two major political parties are basically the same – is not an issue which falls within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

          About 100 years ago, the Progressives took over both major political parties – and both parties have been fooling the American people ever since.

          We pay a heavy price for our inattention and shallowness.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2013 | Reply

          • I agree entirely about the timing of the Progressive attitude of our illustrious elected AntiConstitution politicians! Seemingly, it has infected most State Legislatures and Governor’s Mantions, too. A Constitutional Convention is a much needed event.

            Comment by Bud Parker | March 3, 2013

          • Dear 1st Sgt,

            A con con is the worst idea since sin. Please go to my Daily Commentary page and scroll down to :

            WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON (a/k/a “Art. V Convention”)

            After you have considered that, let me know if you have any questions.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2013

  47. I’ve been talking to the younger generation, 20 year olds (I’m 70), about the Constitution. Seems to me to be in their best interest. Trying to enlighten these people on the Constitution often results in the comment that the Constitution is out dated, perhaps to shut me up. The best response I’ve been able to come up with is, “Do you consider what we have today an update.” I guess I just can’t get much lower than that. Unless I start talking to 12 year olds.

    When I was in public school in the 1950s, we studied the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. I don’t remember when that got tossed but I could guess it was about the time Psychiatry entered the school system. Check out “The Soviet Art of Brainwashing” and learn of Beria’s master plan for destroying the United States, without firing a shot. We’re following the plan. NK stole the comment from Beria and voiced it aloud while banging a shoe on the table. Was big news back then.

    The people are not capable of electing someone more intelligent than they are. This is the revenge of the “C” student. I never would have believed that a senator would say out loud, to the world, that a bill would have to pass so we could then find out what’s in it.

    We need to get these things back into our public school’s curriculum. Talking to my generation is like talking to the wall.

    Comment by Peabody | January 11, 2013 | Reply

    • The younger generation, and most of those in our generation, do not understand that there are fixed, eternal Principles. They do not understand that our federal Constitution created a federal government of extremely limited & defined (“enumerated”) powers.

      Then tell them a little of NAZI Germany, and Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Mao’s Red China. In each of those lands millions and millions of people were killed, starved to death, worked to death, in order to bring about the “socialist paradise”.

      Then, ask them “what goes out of style about a civil government with only limited powers?”

      Some school districts throughout the Country are coming to my website. It is more and more all the time. Usually 1 – 2 every day. They go to my paper on the President’s enumerated powers.

      Someone running for Governor of his State could run on a platform of doing as you suggest and on separating the schools in his State from the federal government.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 11, 2013 | Reply

  48. I read your article on Rubio and I have lived in Florida many years and now I live in Crossville Tennessee and heard you speak on 1-8-13.I believe Rubio is a snake in the grass and is like a wave on the ocean taken by the wind.What concerns me the most is his flip-flop on illegals and I know he will crumble in with Amnesty. I also remember living in Florida when Jeb Bush was allowing illegals to come in by the bus load I lost a job of nearly ten years to illegals I watched communities invaded on a month by month basis.This why I stood up about the pushing of a third party the Bushes,Rubio’s and other clowns will say some T.Party stuff but never intend to carry it out. Thank You for your visit Bill…

    Comment by Bill Oehlecker | January 10, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Bill.

      It makes me sick to hear the establishment conservatives all telling us how great marco rubio is. Even Rush Limbaugh. Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, etc. etc., are pushing him hard on us.
      I suspect that may be why they mocked us “birthers” for questioning zero’s status as a natural born citizen.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2013 | Reply

      • Publius, it’s not that he’s so great, because I don’t think he is either. He has no experience, but then again neither did the Kenyan in the White House. With that said, Rubio is not eligible to run for president anyway. He falls under the “not a natural born citizen.” He himself said that he was born BEFORE his parents were naturalized. Is there some hidden “catch” that the Repubs are using to talk him up, or can he really run?

        Chris J

        Comment by Chris J | January 10, 2013 | Reply

        • well, rubio can run for president b/c the Establishment “conservatives” and the Establishment Republicans ignore the requirement that the President (and Vice President) be natural born citizens. I suspect they mocked us for challenging zero’s eligibility b/c they didn’t want us challenging marco rubio’s eligibility. I’ve lost all respect for Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, etc., b/c they mocked the birthers.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2013 | Reply

  49. Sheriffs called out to fight the law – excerpt

    Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.

    It’s not complicated, he said.

    “Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

    He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.

    Mack said. “The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it.

    “Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court,” Mack said. “Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.”

    Alan Stang at News With Views wrote about another battle Mack encountered while sheriff. A bridge had washed out and parents were driving children 26 miles to school, which physically was located only half a mile across a river.

    The county decided to the fix the bridge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned that an environmental study alone would take 10 years. Mack promised to provide protection for the workers, and said he’d call out a posse if needed. The bridge was built.

    “In 1997, in Nye County, Nev., federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. …

    In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was ‘inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.’ More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.”

    “If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation,” Mack said.

    Just a day earlier, WND reported that Firearms Coalition Executive Director Jeff Knox said Second Amendment supporters aren’t planning negotiations with Obama over gun control. “We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” Knox said.

    “Unfortunately, the president and other anti-rights politicians are not doing anything to keep what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again,” he said. “Instead they are going after law-abiding gun owners and targeting commonly owned firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Their proposed restrictions on these items would have had no impact on what happened at Sandy Hook, and, if passed, would not stop the next craven murderer from wreaking just as much havoc and destruction.”

    “The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt told WND. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”

    He cited a move that already is surging among states to adopt laws and use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal activity. The Tenth Amendment simply reserves to the states and the people all responsibilities not specifically assigned to Washington in the Constitution.

    Pratt noted the move that over the past few years has seen eight states adopt laws that exempt firearms made, sold and kept in the state from federal oversight. The federal government has taken the issue to court, where it remains at this point.

    “A number of states are passing laws that use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal control. Their law says that if a gun is made in the state and sold in the state, that the federal government has no control over it,” Pratt said.

    “In Elkhart County, Ind., there was a farmer who produced raw milk. The Department of Justice was investigating the farmer and was trying to shut down the farm,” Pratt said. “Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers defended the farmer by saying that without a warrant signed by a judge and without probable cause, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the farmer within his jurisdiction of Elkhart County.”

    “Rogers said that if they didn’t leave, he would arrest them. The DoJ threatened to arrest him, but Rogers sent his deputies to defend the farmer,” Pratt said. “The feds have had to back off.”

    He also said local officials in New Mexico burned trees from a small parcel of federal land to halt a raging forest fire. “The sheriff is the chief officer in the county even on federal land if the land is in the county,” Pratt said.

    But Washington is not idle. Barack Obama said he will put the weight of his office behind gun control, and Feinstein even has proposed a federal gun buyback program that has been endorsed by about 40 members of Congress. Feinstein’s dedication to eliminating the Second Amendment is unquestioned. The California Democrat was one of sponsors of the so-called “Brady Bill,” the 1995 “assault weapons” ban. Faced with the limitations placed in the version that was making its way through Congress, Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every gun in America, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

    Mack, who is also the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, said Feinstein is a “polimagician,” a political leader who believes his or her policies will work magic for their constituents. “They think they’re special and better than everyone else. Feinstein’s [own] concealed carry permit is the product of this elitist attitude,” Mack said. He said Congress and Obama simply are loading their political agenda onto the backs of the victims of Sandy Hook.

    Recently, a federal judge struck down a North Carolina provision that authorizes a ban on firearms and ammunition outside homes during “a declared emergency,” determining that violates the Second Amendment. Judge Malcolm J. Howard wrote, “[T]he court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny. … While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

    Read more at

    wnd.com/2013/01/sheriffs-called-out-to-fight-the-law/#aIeDchmbtzOu4Tru.99

    Mack said, “Gun control through history produces one result: “Genocide.” Pratt warned that Washington’s strategy will accomplish nothing but creating vast new ranks of felons in America.

    “No Guns For Negroes” was the largest and longest gun control experiment in tne United States. Result? Total failure of gun control laws in reducing crime. Factually, violent crime increases with increased restrictions placed on gun ownership imposed by the government.

    There has been a long history of denying the Black community of the right to own guns.

    The disarmament of responsible law abiding Blacks has resulted in their inability to defend themselves against the narco economy of their communities giving rise to the highest crime rates in the nation.

    Gun Control does not work in reducing crime. 57% of criminals fear more an armed citizen than they do the police.

    Furthermore, state and local governments cannot be held liable for any citizen harmed by criminals.

    “… the constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.” – DeShaney vs. Winnebago County, 1989 U.S. Supreme Court

    For the complete story, see:

    jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm

    Comment by Peabody | January 10, 2013 | Reply

    • YES!
      We must keep those manly men as sheriffs; and we must replace all the sissy sheriffs with real men!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 10, 2013 | Reply

    • You know, a County Sheriff is a very powerful peace officer. (S)he is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in a State! The Sheriff can evict Federal LEO’s from his County. FBI, DHS, etc…

      Comment by Bud Parker | March 2, 2013 | Reply

      • True! I think Sheriff Mack is correct: The Sheriffs are our last hope. I expect to post a video on my web site soon re a speech I gave where I mention this. Watch for it, 1st Sgt.!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 2, 2013 | Reply

        • It is time that everyone who frequents this blog to consider joining the Shefiff’s Reserve in their respective County or Parrish. It doesn’t matter if you’re young or old, physically fit, a good shot, or have any other particular skill set. What does matter is a profession of support should the Sheriff require it.

          Comment by Bud Parker | March 3, 2013 | Reply

          • You are so right! The County Sheriffs really are our last hope.

            In Tennessee, our sheriffs have statutory authority to appoint as many as they want to be in their posse. If our State legislatures are going to refuse to be manly men and defend us from the feds, then our Sheriffs must do it.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 3, 2013

  50. Can Obama issue an executive order taking our guns, or could this be done only by amending the Constitution?

    Comment by jeanniemac | January 6, 2013 | Reply

    • Every power the President lawfully has is listed (“enumerated”) in the Constitution. His lawful powers are few, limited and defined. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

      The Constitution does NOT grant to the President power to take away our guns.

      The President may not lawfully make an executive order taking away our guns.

      Furthermore, CONGRESS has no lawful authority to take away our guns. The powers of Congress are also “enumerated” – listed in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to make a law taking away our guns. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/

      Now look at the Second Amendment: That prohibits the federal government from in any way infringing our rights to keep and bear arms. “Militia” always meant the Citizens. These were the farmers, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, etc. who fought for us in the American War for Independence.

      So, NO ONE in the federal government has authority to take away our guns, to restrict our rights to keep and bear arms in any way, to restrict or control or regulate ammunition, etc. When they do this anyway, they are acting unlawfully, and it is our obligation to resist them.

      The States should and must NULLIFY any act of Congress, any executive order of the president, and any decision of the supreme court which pretends to restrict – in any way – our Right to keep and bear arms.

      If the States are too cowardly or leftist to Nullify any act of the federal government restricting our rights to keep and bear arms, then WE THE PEOPLE on an individual basis, must refuse to submit. Once a government disarms the People, MASS MURDER, CONCENTRATION CAMPS, AND GAS CHAMBERS are in the near future. One of the first things Hitler did was to BAN GUNS!

      If obama issues an executive order which pretends to ban our guns, or restrict them in any way, he will be acting unlawfully and the STATES and The People should nullify his acts by refusing to comply.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 6, 2013 | Reply

      • As an aging Retired Army fellow I am continually amazed at just how creative and ddetermined certain people in elected office can be in their never-ending quest to disarm the citizens of this Nation. To make the citizens helpless against aggression can only be rationalized as an attempt to enslave us.

        Frankly, if the vast majority of us carried concealed weapons, without license or permit from our oppressive government agencies, we would be a much safer society. The crime rate would drop dramatically if these hoodlums and thieves thought that any potential victim may present them with their demise. I won’t even bother to explain how I feel about the many levels of corrupt government exist from the lowest community level to the highest office in the land.

        May God keep his eyes open on our Nation…

        Comment by Bud Parker | March 1, 2013 | Reply

        • If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

          Comment by Bud Parker | March 4, 2013 | Reply

          • Except they are not geniuses – they are ignorant morons.

            The dirty secret is that you do not have to be smart and knowledgeable to graduate from law school. All you need to do is regurgitate the statism your professors fed you.

            I have never come across a single one of them who can think.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 5, 2013

          • The Geniuses to which I refer are certainly not our current crop of Nitwits. I menat those that created this Nation in is’ original condition.

            Comment by Bud Parker | March 5, 2013


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: