The power of The Supremacy Clause every Patriot should know... by Ken La Rive

No, I do not have a law degree... but I want my country back. I want states rights to trump unconstitutional powers imposed by a top heavy and tyrannical Federal Government. I want anyone who destroys my Constitution to be held accountable...I want the Patriot Act, and the NDAA abolished, the socialism of Obama-care demolished completely, and I want no more debt from the Federal Reserve. In fact, I want the Federal Reserve to be disemboweled. I also want the Supremacy Clause to be understood by the general populous, and intelligently discussed.

As an Oath Keeper, I am looking for a peaceful means of accomplishing this, by rule of constitutional law. I want my civil liberties to be returned to me and my country to again be the light of Liberty. A government who imposes its will on an unwilling populous is an oppressor, and I will resist this with all of my might. In fact, I would willingly die for this.


On April 26th, of 2013, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, wrote a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. It informed Governor Brownback that the Obama administration considers any attempt to protect the Second Amendment an unconstitutional act, and that federal officers and agents will “continue to execute their duties,” no matter what any State Constitution indicates. It was a reply to a recent law enacted by the governor that declared:

Our right to bear arms

“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule of regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.”

Nullification

Governor Brownback’s letter is referencing a long standing debate called nullification. His take on the subject of nullification was rejected by Obama, as it has been historically rejected repeatedly by the courts. 

According to Wikipedia:

“The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, including the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s ruling in 1854 that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.”

Governor Brownback, however, does not deny this debate, but makes reference to what he considers a misreading, or wrong interpretation of Article VI of the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

Supremacy Clause - Legal Definition. n. The clause in United States Constitution's Article VI, stating that all laws made furthering the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States are the “supreme law of the land.”

Supremacy Clause dictionary definition | Supremacy Clause defined

www.yourdictionary.com/supremacy-clause

Attorneys, and students of law, have an obligation to step forth at this time, to define this reinterpreted meaning for the good of Liberty once and for all. I have highlighted several words and phrases below, key words that can be used as bricks to rebuild our Constitutional Republic, without violence. Our Revolution, as promoted by Ron Paul, is one of intellect.

Governor Brownback suggests that federal laws are not the supreme law of the land without qualification, (the key word), and using the article’s description as reference, "In persuance there of." It does not state a violation, but that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” is in effect the law of the land. This indicates that when the Federal Government passes any mandate, bench-law, or any measure not provided for in the “limited rooster” of its “enumerated powers,” those acts do not take precedence over our State Constitutions. In other words, an unconstitutional mandate from the Oval Office, or any external force like the UN, should be regarded as “merely acts of usurpation’s” and in effect be disregarded, disobeyed, even ignored, as they do not qualify to be the supreme law of the land.

In an article by Joe Wolverton II. J.D., he mentions several reference to the Federalist Papers in his discussion of this issue. One such letter, and subsequent clarification, came from Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist, No. 78, : “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution shall be valid.”

James Madison continued along this thread in a speech he gave in 1789: : “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.”

It seems evident by these writings, just a small portion to the Federalist Papers, that these men had a crystal clear understanding of the chain of command, and they saw State’s Rights trumping Federal Rights when the Constitution was originally drafted. This is why the Federalist Papers are so important to know. If there is any doubt posed, the true and directed meaning of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments, can be understood.

And know this from history, once our rights are diminished, it is indeed a stepping stone for more, incrementally, and getting them back peacefully next to impossible. From an historical perspective, once lost, only the dismantling of that government will return it, by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Hopefully, there is enough of our Republic’s rule of law remaining to curb this coming clash, as there are some who will stop at nothing to abolish all unconstitutional mandates.

Jefferson said it well: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. 

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” -Ron Paul

How we destroyed Iranian Democracy, and stole their future... By Ken LaRive

 

How we destroyed Iranian Democracy, and stole their future... By Ken LaRive

False flags have changed history, and our founding fathers knew well how dangerous they were. Many times they warned us to remain vigilant, knowing full well the difficulty of safeguarding against them. Yes, Iran is an enemy today, but it wasn't  always such. Once, they prided themselves in being moderate, and considered a veritable gateway between the Middle East and Europe. They dressed like any European, voted in elections, with civil liberty for all. We, the United States of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, England, France, and the Dutch... annihilated all of it. Why? Because they did not want to pay the royalties asked by their duly elected President,  for the oil being taken from their shores.  At the time they were considered three in oil potential, with Saudi as number one.... 

One might think such a ploy would be found only in the desperations of a rogue nation, but our history is tainted by many U.S. false flag operations, sometimes propelling us to war. Some were planned and never carried out, some went array, and others found their mark. The following is one major instance that still haunts us today, though its history isn't taught in Progressive classrooms. This travesty, and the Bolsheviki Revolution, will define America, and its deep state.

In 1953 Iran's parliament, called Majilis, had nationalized the petroleum industry so that profit would remain Iran's instead of the United Kingdom. Since 1913 the oil industry there had been controlled by the British Government, and they did not want to lose that control and the flow of oil. Something had to be done.

In the 1950's the New York Times broke a story called, Iranians working for the C.I.A.. They made known a coup d’état that had deposed the democratically elected government of the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. It was called Operation Ajax. 

  

 

Iran is a rich and ancient culture.

Winston Churchill had considered seizing the island of Abadan to regain control, but the then Prime Minister Clement Attee declined that plan for one of economic boycott. Churchill then tried to enlist the US in planning a coup, but Harry S. Truman declined. Dwight D. Eisenhower picked up the baton and used the CIA for its supposed first ever covert operation to overthrow a foreign government. With the help and sanction of the British Government Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (The Shaw of Iran) become an authoritarian monarch. He ruled Iran for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979. The U.S. got a foot-hold there, and together took the lion's share of the profits with the UK, French, and Dutch splitting the rest.

After the coup, the ConsortiumAgreement of 1954 ended the crisis, and cemented this alliance until 1957 when it was modified. The Agreement came to an abrupt ending, however, with the Iranian Revolution. The blow-back came as the pro-Western-pro-Israel Shaw was replaced with an anti-Western anti-Zion Islamic Republic.

Note: According to the historian Mark Gasiorowski: "It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production ... it seems more plausible" the U.S. policymakers "were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran."

In 2000, U.S. Secretary Madeline K. Albright stated: "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." 

Wikipedia: The Shah came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mosaddeq. During the Shah's reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms increased opposition.

Author's note: The coup inhibited the country to grow economically, and in the desperation, opened the door to a radical church-state movement that has set them back socially to the dark ages, with only remnants of western thought remaining. This ruminant is being quelled by a totalitarian regime, and they are fueling resentment for western involvement in the middle east, and our association with Israel, who they consider usurpers, tyrants, slavers, and terrorists.  

None of this would have occurred if we would have paid for the oil, and not stolen it. It promoted a small and obscure English Oil Company to grow into the Megalithic, British Petroleum.  

Amazing how we can create a monster, steal their land, resources, kill their children, and find it so surprising when they try to bite back. How unforgiving.

History of Iran in five minutes...

Pealing back religion for peace

 

Pealing back religion for peace

                                                                  By: Ken La Rive

Seemingly, religions standards are complex, and at odds with each other. But if you can peal back the man-made layers that blanket them, one similarity stands out: deep in the core, peace is the primary mission. Every person on this planet, no matter how involved in anger, despair, revenge, or fear, would rather peace to war. Everyone wants security for their children, a job to support them, and a future free of fear, and yet, these basic needs are completely out of their hands... Governments, religious institutions, and corporations have manipulated the original suppositions of sacred ideals with attempts to hijack it for their own power and control.  War is a prime example of this manipulation of ideas, where we are coerced to hate and mistrust a religion to justify the horror that war brings. Both sides cry out for God, the same God, to win, and both sides need to feel justified in the killing and destruction they impose for their side.

What we find and define as religion may have little or nothing to do with what the core of that religion is, in essence, what it truly stands for. All religions were made to bridge the gap between God and man, with goodness as a means of achieving this. That simple? You bet. The reason for all of the diversity, the disharmony, the intolerance, the complexity, is that men have used religion for their own agenda, politically, and institutionally, perverting the original doctrine. There, buried under all layers of man-made rings, is a primary core of goodness. The following are excerpts from some of our major religions:

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: Do not do to others what would cause you pain if done to you.

   -MAHABHARATA 5-15-17

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you would find harmful.

   -UDANAVARGA 5:18

Confucianism: It is the maxim of loving kindness (jin): “Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

   -ANACLECTS (RONGO) 15:23

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire law: all else is commentary.

   -TALMUD, SHABBAT 312

Islam: “No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself.”

   -THE FORTY-TWO TRADITIONS OF AN-NAWAWI

African traditional religion: What you give (or do) to others, these will give (or do) to you in return.

   -RWANDAN PROVERB

Christianity: Always treat others as you would have them treat you; that is the meaning of the Law of the Prophets.

   -cf. Mt 7:12

If religions of the world could peal back the man made skins of their own design and take a look at the core of their belief system, it would be a first step toward peace. It is a big if, as those who are in control of that religion have a vested interest to keep that core covered. This is not isolated; I am ashamed to say, but flows across the boundaries of all religions, even my own, Christianity.

Men take elements of other religions too, not just their own, and twist them for their own evil purposes and agendas. The word and idea that is Jihad, is a good example. Today, some factions of Islam use the word to mean a “Holy War.” In that process comes a singular fundamentalism that perverts their holy word, at the core. Terrorism, where even women and children are coerced to strap bombs to themselves, for the purpose of killing, is justified by no legitimate religion, including Islam? It can’t, as the study of original text says something else entirely. The word Jihad can mean endeavor, striving, or struggle, and each one is an aim for peace and harmony. It can mean man’s struggle to find Truth in an ambiguous world, an internal struggle, or it could mean man’s outward struggle for moral and ethical advancement within the confines of a society. Islam’s core is one of peace, as in Q 89:28, where, “God will guide men to darkness of war to the light of peace.” Instead, men have taken these words and twisted them to do their bidding on earth. The core is perverted, layer after layer, by the hand of man.

So too does all man-made religions twist the core of goodness. Each in turn will say that theirs is the one true way, and all others who do not follow the path they set forth will be lost. They give no quarter, and so, blood flows for tit for tat wars that feed upon itself. Doesn’t it say that Christians should turn the other cheek?  Even some of the most ancient religions had peace at the core:

Sikhism: “By saturating my mind, the true Name has satisfied all my longings, and given me peace and happiness.” And “only in the Name of the Lord do we find our peace.”

Zoroastrianism: “All men and women should mutually love one another and live in peace as brothers and sisters, bound by the indestructible hand of Humanity.” And also, “I will sacrifice to peace, whose breath is friendly.”

Taoism: “The good ruler seeks peace and not war, and he rules by persuasion rather than by force.”

Shintoism: “The earth shall be free from trouble and we shall live in peace under the protection of the divine.”

Confucianism: “Seek to be in harmony with all your neighbors… live in peace with your brethren.”

I propose that any ideal that causes hate and discontent, or embraces intolerance and antagonism, is not a religion at all. If in fact a religion is designed to bring one closer to God by the grace of goodness, any group that represses and harasses another, or resorts to blackmail, kidnapping or the killing of another, is in no way a genuine religion. Note that so called Islamic fundamentalists always have nationalistic sentiments of church and state, which feeds on the germ and bane of totalitarianism, discrimination of all venues, and angry resentments for some past transgression are the wounds that will go unhealed from generation to generation, the true motivation for war.  Healing can only be had by revealing the core of every religion, love and peace, and applying it by each individual one by one.

Only when religion can peal back the man made garbage attached to it can a similarity be found: that the core is the same, and in essence the same thing. Human nature, the fundamental nature that makes us human, is identical. Every person of sound mind wants safety, love and peace, and those who profess religion yet says “I love God” and in turn hate my brother, is delusional, as one negates the other. The promotion of revenge, hatred, and the violence of war is the opposite of what one finds in the core, where forgiveness and reconciliation is found.

There is no denying that the laws we share in America, our Conservative thoughts on the fundamental rights of men, family values from birth and a natural death, where civil authority is thought to be of service and not dominion, are concepts planted by Christianity throughout the Middle East, and Europe long ago. But then  Jewism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhists and many others have also distinctly paved the way for what we hold to be self evident today, even the ever present pluralist society we call America. The pure core that each holds precious and distinctly theirs is mostly indistinguishable from each other in the broader spectrum, and we are indeed a melting pot of many ideas from every religion...

The core is a shining light to all who could admit wrong, have guilt, and be sorry for it. All sides, including what we find as our own, has a measured amount of wrongness, and if one could transcend, by embracing the simple truth at the core, his hateful ego, his blind ambition, his twisted process of right and wrong and justification, might then be grounds for solidarity, one soul at a time.

Special thanks to Francis Cardinal Arinze, who is head of the Pontifical Council for Intereligious Dialogue, Nigerian born. Though he states it in another ways, to me looking at man made religion as an onion with the truth deeply buried, is a great metaphor for understanding. Unfortunately, the problem that thwarts change is that most every person who reads this will think that somehow it doesn’t apply to him, as his religious experience, his faith base, is the one and true path. They are the fuels that fire the horrors of war, and the catalyst for the evil men do. Harsh, but true, as no matter how genuine and sufferable he thinks he is, he brings the problem home without solution.

Note: The Vatican has long seen the problems associated with religions imposing their will on individuals, and other religions. In the assembly of 3,068 Bishops of the Catholic Church for The Second Vatican Council that was held between 1962 and 1963, it was said. Peace is not merely the absence of war. Nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of the balance of power between enemies. It is an enterprise of justice (cf. Is 32:17).Also, “The council calls on Christians to cooperate with all men and women in securing among themselves a peace based on justice and love and in setting up agencies for peace. 9cr. Gaudium et Spec, 77).

Israel is a good onion to peal. A secular institution, it has hijacked the core of Judaism to advance its political ideology. Only by studying the fundamentals, will the truth be found. Our founders opposed church state institutions, as contrary to fundamental human rights, as given by God.