Operation Resist Tyranny

Great Statement Resister, Will We Fail, NO! We must always"Sing Victory" and believe in Victory for our Cause and being Successful. The Charter and Proclamation of Rights and the Charter being the Framework is our agreement and Vision of America and what it should be as you couldn't say any better. We must as citizens and members of this board stand by these principles, goals, and framework and pursue our desires for our future and today.

It's too bad that I couldn't see the recent U.S Senate battle playing out in advance between Herschel Walker and Raphael Warnock. I think I would have run even if it were a write in campaign. My platform would be a ten point agenda:

1) Promote The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man

2) Have the 14th Amendment nullified and declared void

3) Have the 16th Amendment nullified and declared void and replaced by constitutional taxation

4) Abolish the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and have the Federal Reserve audited before shutting it down

5) Abolish the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.) If the people want to outlaw a gun or a feature, it should be done via federal legislation

6) Get the federal government out of the welfare business. Turn welfare over to the states

7) Encourage a TWO YEAR moratorium on all immigration, giving BICE time to catch up on pending citizenship applications and force Congress to address the issue fully at the threat of extending the moratorium

8) Eliminate all SSN based identification; REPEAL the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify

9) Dismantle the federal Department of Education

10) Begin holding the government, doctors, mental health workers, Big Pharma, etc. accountable for the "legal" drugs they unnecessarily prescribe. Require that mind altering drugs be given only as a LAST RESORT after a patient has been subjected to non-drug therapies. When mind altering drugs are administered, the patient would be constantly monitored and put into a home or hospital if the condition warrants it.

Yeah, I know. Most of it would never get passed, but it would serve as a wake up call that we are considering it. The longest journey starts with a single step.

Let me go down the line for you:

Abortion: Women try to claim that abortion is some kind of "right." If I could pass one law, it would probably end abortion as we know it. The woman will say it's her body and her baby. In that case if it's your baby and your body, it should be YOUR problem. Imagine telling women that. A woman makes a unilateral decision to risk pregnancy when she willingly has sex. Then it's her baby, her body, but when she wants money, she relies on the sperm donor to be her financial revenue generating resource. That is not a fair and equitable relationship that puts both parties on an equal footing. The man has to be responsible for the woman's decision for 18 years, but the woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy with no input from the sperm donor / potential revenue generating resource. If it is the woman's baby and her body AND her decision, then rewrite the law to allow the man to simply pass on any responsibility for the woman's decision. Equal protection of the law. The Right to Life takes precedence over any pretend civil right. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex.

I do think women should have the option of an abortion in cases of rape, incest, and where the mother's life may be at risk where the doctor says a decision has to be made (i.e. save the mother or save the baby.)

Gay and Inter-racial marriages: The LGBTQP and those who get involved in inter-racial relationships want the protection of the laws. First, I thought those people believed in "democracy." They should be consistent in their philosophy. In order to get married the parties must get a marriage license. The legal definition of the word license is:

"Generally, a “license” is permission granted by a qualified authority permitting a licensee to do something that would otherwise be prohibited."


www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license

There is NO automatic right to get married when the parties are seeking the permission of the government. I wonder if those who actually protest this were the kind of kids that refused to go to bed as children when their parents said bed time. Did they cross their arms, refuse, and demand some ill defined "right?" If the people have spoken in a jurisdiction, then the law is what the law is. Everybody is expected to obey the law. If those who object to any proposed ban think about it, legislators are elected by popular vote. Majority rules. Isn't that what their idea of "democracy" is all about? Since the Tenth Amendment doesn't allow the federal government to interfere in the institution of marriage (as it relates to marriage licenses), whether it is legal or illegal to marry outside your race or enter into a gay union and call it marriage is wholly dependent upon the state government.

The nutty wall idea was the Democrats idea before the right got conned into taking up that banner. It was and is a tool to justify the POLICE STATE. The nutty wall idea is an attempt to justify the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the Constitution Free Zone, the gutting of the Fourth Amendment along with the evisceration of the legal principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, and unwarranted stops based on profiling. The wall idea (with its ID requirements) were instrumental in saving the 16th Amendment, the IRS, and the income tax from inevitable extinction (as per the proposed Fair Tax.) The nutty wall idea is also the justification for the assaults on private property Rights, the Freedom of Movement, the Right to travel, and a Freedom of Association and Disassociation. There are far more effective ways of dealing with the flow of foreigners into the United States. NEVER forfeit your Rights for the promise of temporary Safety (as per Benjamin Franklin.)

Social Security is legally known as OASDI or Old Age Survivors Disability Insurance - The federal government and the system in general have people believing that SS money is an income and nobody protests. It is insurance and in every instance save of OASDI, insurance proceeds are NOT income and not taxable. Socialist Security money should be tax free and it should not play any part in determining eligibility for ANY other assistance from any other source. I would advocate making Socialist Security payments tax free and not related to reportable income. The amounts paid out should be increased and seniors should be allowed to work without being penalized.

After a year this has gotten the interest of at least one poster.  I don't agree with marriage licenses either.  It has always left me with more questions than answers.  The Constitution speaks about the common law and now the states don't recognize common law.  That means you get the permission of the state and marriage is a civil contract having nothing to do with the vows you make before God.  The government really confuses me.  They want to impose a separation of church and state and get into the business of the vows you make before God.  Does that make sense to you?

Your part about the wall kind of went over my head.  We can't tell if you are for the wall or not.  It is better to oppose it because the wall requires the Constitution Free Zone.  If you don't know what that is LMK and I can look the board over because I read about it here.   Glad that you are posting on the board and considering these subjects.  Quite a few people are reading this stuff.  Few are posting.  Even fewer are actively pursuing the ideas.  Why is that?

We have addressed this many, many times. Click this link:

resisters.freeforums.net/thread/99/open-borders

Within that will be more than fifty internal links that will verify that the information is true and accurate. Also, if you really want the facts about an issue, learn how to use this board and scroll through the various threads on the forum to see if the topic isn't already being discussed. Here is the link again for a quick four minute tutorial that will help you find what you're looking for:

resisters.freeforums.net/thread/218/navigate-resisters-board

Since everybody that posts regularly is in this conversation let us make it unanimous. The wall idea will never ever become a reality. We have let too many third world people in the country and the democrats have allowed them to become citizens and the republicans demand that foreigners become citizens. They now outnumber the white people that the forces of the democrats and republicans hope to destroy. From a liberal perspective there is nothing that can be done to keep America from committing cultural suicide. We don't need to be talking about what can be done to stop it. The damage has been done.

Barring a miracle Trump will probably be the next president. His increased calls for a wall will make the third world even more desperate to flood America with new citizens. Once those people become citizens we will not keep out the rest of the third world because the courts will look down on separating families. Those who gain amnesty as they call it will be able to get their families in and so on and so on and so on. What is this issue really about?

The globalists and that includes Trump plus many more kosher conservatives will favor a digital currency and the wall will come with additional calls to strengthen national ID on the belief that we will control immigration by putting everybody under constant surveillance. Hidden in the immigration battle are a digital currency, constant surveillance by the government, national ID, a suspension of the Constitution with the Constitution Free Zone, an end to the Second Amendment, Trump's war against the Fourth Amendment realized, and hate speech laws strictly enforced so that we may not criticize what is going or have discussions about what in theory can be done. Under Trump the gay agenda will be furthered and nobody will be able to criticize their efforts to radicalize the youth and make sexual deviants out of children.

Most of your concerns are probably better discussed in the ongoing topic here about intelligence. That will better prepare you for what you can realistically do. In my way of thinking we should be building solid talking points about why homosexuality, inter-racial marriages, abortion, diversity, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, the wall idea, the assaults against white people whether it is through critical race theory or so called anti-hate laws and civilian disarmament are wrong from both a moral and practical point of view.

Here is part one to answer you:

We have gotten into this predicament by a process of incrementalism. Depending upon which theorist you rely on, the financial situation was started when the U.S. went bankrupt or maybe with the creation of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Reserve System (which is no more "Federal" than Federal Express.) I say the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional because there is not one sentence in the entire Constitution that allows the Congress of the United States to delegate their authority to unelected bankers and then charge us interest for doing the work we pay Congress to do.

Other theorists will have other ideas, but I'd like to quote our country's founders on this:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." George Washington in his Farewell Address

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,[1] and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson (https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/natural-progress-things-spurious-quotation/)


"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

We did not heed the warnings of our founders. THAT is the primary reason we find ourselves living under an illegal / unconstitutional / de facto form of government. In 1803 the United States Supreme Court set itself up as being the final arbiters of what the Constitution means in the case of Marbury v. Madison. So far, not even Jesus has disputed their claim - and that pretty much destroys the B.S. you learned in school about three separate but co - equal branches of government. So far the United States Supreme Court has granted powers to Congress that are not in the Constitution; they have reversed their own rulings which means they are legislating from the bench; when they don't like the law and cannot change it any other way, they redefine key words to arrive at an opposite meaning from a law's original intent. They have the power to do this, but they don't have the authority. None of this extra-judicial meddling is allowed in the Constitution.

AFTER the United States Supreme Court rules on what a statute or other law means, THAT should be THE LAW. That should remain the law unless Congress changes the law OR they amend the Constitution. Our forefathers warned of what would happen... and it did.