Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

TRUE CONSERVATIVISM

By James C. Courtade

Foundation of True Conservativism


At probably no other time in our nation's history has it been more frustrating to be a True
Conservative than it is today. True Conservativism is herein defined as the firm adherence to the
truths, beliefs, and principles upon which this great country was founded. Those ageless truths
and principles once held in the highest of esteem are today under constant attack by a growing
number of our society who lack the understanding to appreciate the wisdom upon which True
Conservativism is based.
Conservativism is established on firm Biblical principles which proponents believe to be
as relevant today as they were when they were first written. At the heart of the conservative
doctrine is the belief that Almighty God is Supreme. As such, He is our ultimate Protector and
Provider. It was, therefore, understood by our forefathers that society must fore mostly be
obedient to His statutes and commands. For apart from His Law there can be no liberty. Based
on this belief our founding fathers recognized the true delegation of authority to be:

God

Sovereign Citizen

Constitution

Government

True Conservatives believe and insist that this is the true line of authority. The Liberals
of our country contradict this conviction advancing the perception that ours was intended to be a
secular nation and, therefore, the Constitution is a secular document. Though, in fact, nothing
could be further from the truth. Historical records show that our country’s founders relied heavily
on the works of Locke, Hume, and Blackstone, when considering the Constitution and the form of
government to create. Yet for every reference to anyone of those three men, there are sixteen
references to the Bible. Furthermore, examination of the writings of those three men shows that
each was also heavily influenced by the Bible. For instance, Blackstone stated, “An enactment
is not law when it conflicts with God’s Law.” This truth was echoed by another contemporary
named Frederick Bastiat, a French political philosopher who insisted that “Any law contrary to
God's Law cannot stand.” Then after the Constitution was ratified, James Madison, its primary
author, revealed that the document was, in his opinion, “Divinely inspired”. Therefore, to say
that it was the intention of our founding fathers to create a country whereby there was to have been
a separation between church and state is totally without merit and completely unsupported by
historic fact.
Of concern to our country's founders was not that the government be affected by religion,
but rather of the potential for the government to become involved with and seek to influence
religion. Accordingly, they gave us the First Amendment, which states in part, “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion~ or the free exercise thereof . .” There
is no mention whatsoever of a “separation of church and state”. That precept is included in the
Communist Manifesto. It is, therefore, the view of True Conservatives that the government has
a disability to prohibit religious expressions or events even in the public arena.
Without exception, every one of our country’s founders believed and trusted in
Almighty God. Righteousness in public office was expected to be the norm. Furthermore, their
understanding of the necessity of allowing only men of honor and noble character to serve as our
nation's leaders is, historically speaking, without question. John Adams, for one, spoke of the
importance of having only righteous men elected to public office. He once stated, in so many
words, that if we ever allow unrighteous men to occupy the seats of government ours would
likely become the most tyrannical government in history. True Conservatives adhere to
this belief and advocate that only such righteous persons be elected to any public office.

Politics Today
There are today two major political parties on the U.S.A. - Democrats and Republicans. The
Democrats are liberal in their ideology with respect to social and economic policies.
Republicans, by contrast, are credited with carrying the mantle of conservativism. In
actuality, however, the Republicans are perhaps but little more conservative than are their liberal
counterparts.
Some Republican initiatives, though perhaps not as far-reaching as those proposed
by the Democrats, are still liberal by content. Take for example the Republican sponsored
Prescription Drug Program. Such a bill in no way reflects Conservative ideology. Responsibility
for those costs are to be borne by the private sector exclusively. Then there is the Patriot Act that
was also sponsored by the "conservative" Bush Administration. It violates the very
foundation of Conservative thought and ranks with Roosevelt's New Deal in its intrusion of
our freedoms and privacy. Even the most liberal Ted Kennedy or John Kerry would be hard-
pressed to surpass that display of liberalism. Ben Franklin once wrote, “Any people willing to
give up a measure of freedom in exchange for a measure of security deserve and shall
ultimately have neither.”
Instead of embracing the True Conservative belief that Almighty God is our Protector we
have, through the Patriot Act, allowed the government to intrude unabated into the private
affairs and assume authority heretofore unimaginable over the Sovereign Citizens of our
country. Yet when the negative consequences of such legislation are finally realized it
will be the "Conservatives", since Bush is a Republican, who will be blamed. And so it
is, Conservatives are despised by Democrats, disregarded by Republicans, and understood by
neither. Such is the source of their incredible frustration.

Truths upon Which Conservativism is Based

Ours Is A Nation of Sovereigns.


Our country’s founders understood that man owed his allegiance Co Almighty God. Accordingly,
he has no earthly king. Like Israel, prior to the reign of King Saul, the Citizens of the several
states formed not a nation, but a union, similar in nature to the twelve tribes. The Citizens
were sovereign under God.
The powers of the States, the founders understood, were obtained from their Citizens.
Likewise, they knew implicitly Chat all powers afforded the United States government must be
derived from the states. Therefore, the States have authority over the Federal government just as
the Citizens have authority over the State governments, which they empowered. It is upon this
truth that Conservatives contend that the United States government can possess no powers greater
than the collective powers of the States and the States can assume no powers beyond those of their
Citizens. Furthermore, that which is unlawful for the Citizen to do cannot be made lawful for the
government to engage in.

The Inalienable Rights of Citizens


Our country’s founders understood that the individual Citizens have inalienable rights and
acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence that they were bestowed on mankind by
Almighty God. In that document, Thomas Jefferson wrote in reference to inalienable rights “that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It was therein acknowledged that
such rights cannot come from government. Accordingly, it affirmed the understanding and belief
of our founders that governments are not at liberty to take such rights away from its Citizens. Nor
does government have the authority to infringe upon or in any way attempt to abridge the God-given
rights of its Citizens.
It was also understood that, because such rights come from Almighty God, the Citizens are
not free to give them up or in any way relinquish them. Then too, because they are
"inalienable", Citizens are not even at liberty to put a "lien" on them. They, therefore, cannot
be freely given up or even sold. Only God has the authority to recall that which He has given.
True Conservatives are appalled by the fact that our government has, over the past one hundred
years, systematically usurped power by denying Citizens of their lawful rights and replacing them
with mandated privileges - privileges acquired only through licenses. A license is a government
issued instrument that gives a person the authority to do that, which otherwise is illegal. It is
not, as many believe, an official statement of accomplishment of ability. Such would be achieved
through the use of a "Certificate". A license is what a king issues to certain subjects in
order to give them special privileges. In the united States of America, the sovereign Citizens are
the kings and queens. The government is comprised of public servants.

The USA - A Constitutional Republic


In the Declaration of Independence it is written, “We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights, which among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights, governments are instituted alone men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.” (Emphasis added)
In this document our forefathers acknowledged that the purpose of government is not to
bestow rights, but rather to secure them. They also understood that the rights of any person, state,
or country were limited to those which the entity is capable of successfully defending. After much
consideration they concluded that the form of government most likely to accomplish that objective
is a Constitutional Republic.
Ours is not a Democracy. A Democracy is a form of government in which public opinion
is the final court of appeals. It's a government in rebellion to God's Law of absolutes.
Democracy is another name for “mob rule”. Under a Democracy fifty-one percent of the society
can vote away the rights of the other forty-nine percent. Once done, the minority has no recourse.
An example of a Democracy is as follows:
There are three persons on an island, two men and one woman. They agree to have
a democracy. Soon after, a proposal is made by one of the men that rape should be made
legal and, therefore, be permitted. They vote and the “yeas” cast by the two men pass the
measure. The woman objects, but has no recourse.
The 1928 American Military Training Manual defines a Democracy as:
“A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting
or any other form of direct expression. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward
law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or
governed by passion, prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

As a Republic, the rights of even the smallest of the minorities are protected. Under such
government the majorities have no power over the minorities; nor can the minorities have any
power over the majorities. Elected Representatives write laws that are consistent with God's Law
and the Constitution and are imposed equally on all people regardless of their status.

The 1928 American Military Training Manual defines Republic as:


“Authority is derived through the election of public officials best fitted to represent
them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and as sensible
economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with
fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater
number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the
dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty,
reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Since our Republic has as the basis of its laws the Constitution of the united States of
America, ours is a Constitutional Republic. True Conservatives insist that our national leaders
govern it as such.

The Foundation of Our Law


Prior to the founding of our country, each state was a sovereign nation unto itself. They
each established their own laws, monetary units, and taxes. Though each state cherished its
independence, they knew that there could be some distinct advantages of having a national
government with limited authority. Since it would be inconvenient for each state to maintain an
army in order to defend itself against foreign aggression, it seemed appropriate to create a body to
perform that function on their behalf., It also seemed wise to give that entity the powers to settle
disputes that may arise between the various states and of the citizens of different states. Yet at the
same time, they didn't want to call it a national government because they didn't want to give the
impression that this government has authority over them. They just wanted to delegate enough
power for it to be able to carry out the few responsibilities they gave it. Thus they decided to refer
to it as a “federal” government and they named it the United States.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a contract between the several
sovereign nation states and the United States, their agent. The terms of that contract created the
Constitution, which embody the Laws of the Land. For no state, nor the agent they created,
could enact laws contrary to the Constitution, so too, all of the states as well as the United States
were bound by the terms of that document.
The assigned responsibilities of the United States, as well as the limited, delegated powers
granted from the sovereign states to that governmental body are defined in Article 1, Section 8 of
the Constitution. Other than those powers listed, the Federal Government has no additional lawful
authority. Furthermore, it is guaranteed by the 9th Amendment that “the enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”, and by the l0th Amendment that “The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.”

True Conservatives insist that the Federal Government has no authority other than those
itemized in the Constitution and that all legislation passed in excess of that lawful authority is
unlawful.

Law and Contracts


There are three distinct types of laws. They are, Criminal Law, Contract Law,
which is under Civil Law, and Admiralty / Maritime Law. Under Criminal Law, a person is at
liberty to do whatever he so chases as long as his actions do not infringe on the person or
property of another. If persons violate that law, and are found guilty of' such by juries of their
peers, they can be fined, imprisoned, or even executed, depending upon the severity of the
infraction. Contract Law involves agreements made between two or more parties whereby each
entity agrees to perform a function in exchange for a specifically defined benefit. If one or more
of the parties to a contract fail to perform as specified in the agreement, they can be sued in a court
of law and forced to comply with the contract terms. Yet the non-compliant party(s) do not face
fines or imprisonment. The court will but insist that they fulfill their contractual obligations. If
they do not do so, they may be found in contempt of court and face fines and or imprisonment for
that infraction, but not as a result of non-compliance to the contract. Maritime laws have to
do with contracts involving the shipments of goods between countries. Yet unlike domestic
contract violations, persons failing to adhere to the terms of maritime contracts can be imprisoned.
Admiralty Law has to do with the laws of the seas. As contrasted from common law, the captain
of a ship makes the laws and, if violated, he is judge, jury, and executioner. While on his
ship, he is supreme.
It should be pointed out that though law protects a person's rights, contracts supersede law.
For example, suppose a person accepts employment with a company and signs a contract
stating that he will not divulge company secrets. Then further suppose that after a year he has
learned much valuable information and decides to earn additional income by holding weekend
seminars. When found out and brought to court, he might tell the judge that he was just
'exercising his First Amendment right to free speech’. The judge, however, would remind him
that his First Amendment rights are limited by the terms of the contract he signed. In law, the
contract is supreme.
This principle of contract supremacy applies not only to individuals, but to the governments
as well. The Federal Government is at liberty to write as many laws as it wishes. However,
all laws must be consistent with the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in
1803, Marbury v. Madison, “anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” The
Constitution is the Law of the Land and as such, all statutes must be in agreement with it.
True Conservatives are of the belief that at least ninety percent of the legislation coming out
of Washington is outside the purview of its lawful authority. As such, the laws are null and
void.
Powers Granted to Congress
All powers granted to Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
of the United States of America. The eighteen clauses contained therein itemize specifically
the responsibilities and authority of our national legislature. Within the scope of the powers
listed, Congress is at liberty to pass as many laws as it deems necessary in order for the
national government to fulfill the responsibilities for which it was created. However,
any attempt by Congress to initiate and enact legislation outside the purview of its limited
authority is unlawful for such legislation would be repugnant to the Constitution.
For the sake of later discussion, lets examine those eighteen provisions.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power


(1) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,
but all duties, imposts, and excise shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(2) To borrow money on the credit of the Unites States;

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes;

(4) To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies throughout the United States;

(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and fix the standard of
weights and measures;

(6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the
Unites States;

(7) To establish post offices and post roads;

(8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

(9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

(10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses
against the law of nations;

(11) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
captures on land and water;

(12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a
longer term than two years;

(13) To provide and maintain a navy;


(14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions;

(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states
respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
(17) To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten
miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by the consent of the legislature of ·the state in which the same shall be for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; And
(18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution
in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now lets look specifically at each of the eighteen clauses and examine them in the light of
what is currently being done by our national government.

Clause 1 grants Congress the power to “1ay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises”. For a complete analysis of this authority see “Why the Income Tax is 100%
Constitutional, Lawful and Legal, and Why Most People are Not Required To File.”

Clause 2 gives the United States (the agent of the several states) the authority to borrow money,
but only on “the credit of the United States”.

Money is defined by Webster as “a medium of exchange.” Its purpose is to


facilitate the trade of goods and services. Yet in order to do so, the money must have an
intrinsic value. Historically, gold and silver have served well as money, for their values
remain fairly constant over time.
When implementing a monetary system it was understood that the value received in
a transaction was necessarily to equal the value of the goods and or services parted with.
Therefore, the gold or silver receive in a transaction was officially predetermined as to its
value by weight thereby assuring both parties that 1) the money received was fair, and 2) that the
debt was paid.
Today, Congress has abandoned its obligation to "coin gold and silver". Instead,
it has entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve, a privately owned entity, which
is neither “Federal” or a “Reserve”, to control our money supply through the issuance of not
gold or silver, but rather, debt instruments. Furthermore, the currency issued is not backed by
gold, silver, or any other asset. Accordingly, U.S. citizens are no longer capable of
“paying” a debt. All debts are instead, “discharged”.
Congress has a disability to relinquish its Constitutional responsibility to coin gold and
silver in exchange for worthless notes. Therefore, the system in place is totally without
Constitutional authority and is a gross violation of the contract (Constitution) which was
entered into by the several states under the authority of We the People.
“On the credit of the United States” is the “credit” only of the corporate entity
named “United States”. The Unites States in not a part of the several states that formed it.
Nor are the several states a part of the United States. They are totally separate and distinct
entities. Per the terms of the Constitution, neither the several states or the Federal
government has the power to change the terms of their relationship. Accordingly, the states
lack the authority to pledge any of their assets in favor of the Federal government. Nor does
the Federal government have the authority to demand or even expect that such assets be
pledged.

Clause 3 gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Regulating commerce has to do with the encouraging and maintaining of


competition. With respect to “foreign nations” it means that Congress shall disallow low
priced goods, the products of foreign companies paying inferior wages, from flooding the u.s.
markets and resulting in the idling of our domestic workforce and inflicting turmoil on our
economy. As a tool to regulate “foreign nations”, Congress was given the authority to
impose duties (tariffs) on imported goods, (Clause 1). The intent was to be able to raise the prices
of such goods to those of domestic producers and thereby allow for competition to be based on
product and price and not just price alone. Such policies promote the growth and prosperity of the
Citizens of the United States.
As for the “several states”, the “regulat[ion] of commerce” was intended to be a
tool to ensure domestic uniformity. For example, if a certain type of pollution is found to
be a byproduct of a given industry, a national, uniform law could be enacted, which if so
passed, would affect all related businesses the same. The alternative would have been to
leave such matters to the states to pass as they see fit. However, if such were the case, the
companies located in the states that passed the legislation would find themselves at a
competitive disadvantage, resulting in the loss of business and jobs. So too, given that
scenario, the state legislatures would find it difficult to consider such measures mindful that
the effect would be economically detrimental to businesses in their states. Consequently, the
environment would suffer unnecessarily.
It was, however, never the intent of the founding fathers to allow the United States
government the authority to dictate to producers either what or how to produce any given
product. Such decisions were to be made exclusively by those assuming the risk. True
Conservatives abhor the unlawful intrusion of government bureaucrats on private business,
believing that a free market, left to itself, will provide the ultimate of goods and services, having
taken into account all related considerations necessary to best satisfy consumers.

Clause 4 gives Congress the authority to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.

Consistent with the theme of a Republic, is the provision for uniformity. Just as all
Citizens of our country are to be governed by the same laws, so too, those coming to our
country regardless of origin, would be subject to the same immigration laws and policies.
True Conservatives are, therefore, upset by the fact that the Federal government has
failed to protect our southern borders from infiltration into our country by illegal immigrants
via Mexico. So too, Conservatives shudder to think that such unlawful entry is actually permitted,
thereby making a sham of the procedures followed by law-abiding immigrants who come to enjoy
the same opportunities as have been acquired by others unlawfully. Once here, both are afforded
the same benefits.
Given that the Citizens of the u.s. would engage in interstate commerce, and
realizing that there would be situations in which some people would be unable to fulfill their
financial obligations, Clause 4 also provided Congress the authority to pass "uniform"
bankruptcy laws. This provision did not, however, provide for the United States to assume
bankruptcy status.

Clause 5 gives Congress the authority and the responsibility to coin money, regulate
the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
Prior to the formulation of our Federal government, the states experience with respect to
currencies. Every state issued its own. experienced were immeasurable. The value of
any given currency was only by its availability, which could be increased at any time by a
whenever it needed additional money.
The founders were well aware of the problems associated with script currencies and
knew that the only means by which fairness and honesty in commerce could be attained was to
incorporate a money system based on species. Historically, they knew that gold and silver
served that function better than anything else. After much thought and consideration, it was
decided to pattern the U.S. system on the Spanish Milled Dollar. Being in agreement, the
founders defined the U.S. Dollar to be 367 1/4 grains of fine silver. Based on that weight the
size of smaller coins was also determined.
Besides silver coins, Congress was also given the authority to coin gold. Then,
because the relative values of gold and silver were constantly subject to change due to the
potential for discoveries and mining, the second half of Clause 5 was included. Congress was
therein authorized to "fix the standard of weights and measures". This allows Congress the
ability to determine the relationship of the relative value of a specified weight of gold to silver and
coin money accordingly.
In 1913, a small quorum of the U.S. Congress met during the Christmas recess and
passed the Federal Reserve Act, which President Wilson promptly signed into law. The bill
provided for a privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to be given charter and with it the
exclusive authority and responsibility to issue paper currency. The currency was to be
backed in full by gold and silver reserves held by the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, at any time holders
of the currency were allowed to redeem their paper for gold or silver.
Clause 5, however, gives only Congress the authority to coin money.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Constitution, which granted Congress the
authority to discharge its duty to do so. Furthermore, Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution
says, “No state .. shall coin money .. make anything but gold and silver coin
a tender in payment of debts.” Therefore, it's readily apparent that the Federal Reserve Act and
everything related to it is unlawful.
Then in March, 1933, President Roosevelt signed into law H.R.1497 that made it unlawful
for U.S. Citizens to own gold. The Federal Reserve Notes were, thereby, no longer
redeemable. Instead of receiving payment for goods and services, the public receives
“claims to wealth”. Therefore, it was no longer possible for anyone to pay a debt. All debts
from that time forward were “discharged”. So too, from that time on, Citizens really owned”
nothing.
The total impact of this change on our society is well beyond the scope of this paper.
The ramifications to our national sovereignty were catastrophic. The truth is, on March 9,
1933 the U.S. quietly, but officially declared its bankruptcy. The government voluntarily allowed
itself to become a slave to the Federal Reserve Bank that it created. Today, the U.S. is subject to
the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlement, two entities it helped to create. At great
issue is the fact that our government unlawfully subjected itself to the Federal Reserve and agreed to
pay interest to it in gold on worthless credits created out of thin air, which it “borrowed” on the good
faith and credit of the United States.
True Conservatives are painfully aware of what transpired with respect to the Federal
Reserve, which is neither “Federal” or a “Reserve”. An objective investigation of it and the events
surrounding its genesis would reveal that the true intent of its supporters was to hypothecate the
assets of the Unites States. As such, they advocate:
1)the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations,
2)the non-renewal of the 20 Year Federal Reserve Charter in 1913, or preferably a bill to do away
with it immediately,
3)demand that the Federal Reserve return the gold, and
4)put the United States back on a gold standard via United States Notes.

Clause 6 gives Congress the authority to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the
securities and current coin of the United States. Likewise,

Clause 10 gives Congress the authority to define and punish piracies and felonies committed
on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

Other than these two provisions, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted additional
authority to “provide for the punishment of”. Though as we know, the Federal government
prosecutes hundreds of its Citizens daily on charges totally unrelated to these two Clauses. All
such arrests and convictions are unlawful. True Conservatives therefore insist that the government
cease and desist from prosecuting and charges other than specified in Clauses 6 and 10.

Clause 7 gives Congress the authority to establish post offices and post roads. True
Conservatives contend that the purpose of this clause was to give the government the ability to
forward mail to its Citizens. It was not intended to give the government a means by which to
claim jurisdiction over the Citizens of the several states due to the fact that they use postal zip codes.

Clause 8 gives Congress the authority to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries.

This clause gives Congress the authority to issue copyrights and patents. It does not grant
Congress the authority to give money to the “arts” or in any way subsidize scientific research. It
was intended strictly to protect inventors and writers from infringement by others on their
intellectual property. All funding and risks associated with such enterprise are to be borne by the
public. The purpose of government in this arena is strictly to serve as a referee in order to
encourage such activities in the private sector.
Unfortunately, we find that the patent office does, at times, deny patents in order to protect
established businesses and or industries from viable competition, ie. energy innovations. True
Conservatives insist that the patent office be used only as was originally intended.

Clause 9 gives Congress the authority to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

The purpose of such tribunals is to reduce the demands on the Supreme Court. True
Conservatives insist that these Article III courts funtion only as Article III courts and not as
Admiralty courts as indicated by the gold fringe on the American flags, which adorn our
nation's courtrooms.

Clause 11 gives Congress the authority to declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisals, and
make rules concerning captures on land and water.

Our nation's founders determined that it would not be wise to allow the several states
the ability to declare war. They knew that if such were to be done, it would be all but impossible
to do so without involving states that were not parties to the dispute. Furthermore, they did
not want that the states should be able to war against each other. Therefore, Congress was
granted the exclusive authority to declare war and issue letters of reprisal on foreign
countries. Such action was to be taken only against a country that waged war upon or
engaged in hostility against the several states. It was not the intent of our founding fathers
that the U.S. should become the world “police”. True Conservatives believe that our
government should stay clear of the politics of foreign countries and not become engaged
in their conflicts

Clause 12 gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies,

Clause 13 gives it the authority to provide and maintain a navy.

No more explanation is needed. One of the very few responsibilities delegated to the
United States government is that of providing for our national defense. True Conservatives
maintain, however, that authority to provide for our "national defense" may not be
construed as authority to assume the responsibility of being the world's sheriff. Our foreign
policy was to have been one of “hands off”. We should avail ourselves to war if and only if
our nation is at risk. So too, by assuming such a posture, the potential for creating
animosity towards us is greatly reduced and with it the probability of war.
Nonetheless, this was intended to be the Federal Government's greatest
responsibility. Accordingly, it is expected that our government would take great steps to ensure
that our military, war technology and equipment is the best in the world. To do so would
serve to discourage even renegades from daring to assault our nation. It is, therefore, to
be expected that this cost area should by far consume the lion's share of our nation's
budget.

Clause 14 gives Congress the authority to make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces.
Since the military is to be under the authority of the United States government, it only
makes sense that the United States government be given the authority and the responsibility to
make the necessary rules to govern those forces.

Clause 15 gives Congress the authority to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;

Clause 16 gives it the authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving
to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

It was understood that every male, ate 14 and over, was a member of the militia of the state
in which he lived. As such, it was mandatory that all be armed and ready to defend against any
hostile invasion. These two clauses give Congress the authority and responsibility to insure that
the militias were trained in order to defend our nation if need be.

Clause 17 gives Congress the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,
over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to
exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in
which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings. Understood and adamantly defended by our nation's founders was the fact that each of
the states were sovereign nations, separate and distinct from each other. Likewise, there was to be
no question that this Federal government being created was not a part of nor did it have authority
over the states in matters other than those itemized in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Therefore, there was no need for debate regarding the fact that the Federal government was given
no jurisdiction within the several states.
Yet given the fact that there needed to be a seat of government, a provision has to be made
to afford the Federal government jurisdiction over the are designated as our nation's capital. It
was, however, decided that the extent of that jurisdiction was to extend no further than ten square
miles around the capital (Washington, D.C.). It was also assumed that this Federal government
could well find it necessary to purchase other lands for certain purposes including forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and etc .. This clause, therefore, also gave exclusive jurisdiction "over all
places purchased". Also implied in this clause is that the Federal government would have
exclusive jurisdiction and have sovereign authority over any lands acquired outside of the several
states.
In what were known as the 1903 Insular Tariff cases, DeLima v. Bidwell and Downs v.
Bidwell, the Unites States Supreme Court pointed out that "with respect to the possessions, the
United States government is at liberty to impose laws that are totally inconsistent with the U.S.
Constitution, just as any sovereign may so place laws over its subjects". It was, therefore, to be
understood that though bound by the Constitution with respect to its dealings with the several states,
the United States Congress is at liberty to enact totally unconstitutional laws governing Washington
D.C., federal lands, buildings, military bases, and its territories and possessions. Over those areas,
the United States government is sovereign.
The people under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, ie. of Washington D.
C., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. are referred to in law as “citizens”. By contrast, the people of
the several states, who are “aliens” to the Federal government, were referred to in law as
“Citizens” (capital "C"). Therefore, outside of Washington D.C., military bases, Federal
buildings, dockyards, etc., the Federal government has no lawful jurisdiction.
True Conservatives are disgusted by the fact that the Federal government has unlawfully
extended its reach into every corner and crevice of the lives of the citizens of the several
states. At every turn, the Citizens of the several states find themselves under some
Federal regulation. As such, Conservatives want the Citizens of the states to be made aware
that the Federal government has no such authority and the Citizens have no lawful duty to submit
themselves to its demands.

Clause 18 gives Congress the authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
This is the clause that gave Congress life. It was herein given the authority to enact all laws
necessary to carry out its limited responsibilities with respect to the several states, its
creator.
So too, this clause gives Congress the authority to enact “all laws which shall be
necessary and proper to effectively rule over the areas in which it was given exclusive
jurisdiction with sovereign authority. Thus, the laws enacted for these purposes are
separate and distinct from the laws needed to execute "the foregoing (Constitutional)
powers" with respect to the several states.
The source of much grief to True Conservatives is the fact that Congress intentionally failed
to make adequate distinction between the two sets of laws. The result is that the implied authority
associated with each new law regularly goes unchallenged by state officials, is never
questioned by our "free press", and is assumed to be genuine and official by the believing public.
The result is that American Citizens have unknowingly allowed themselves to be burdened by
weights imposed by the Federal government that were never even imagined
let alone envisioned by our founders. Through ignorance and apathy the sovereign kings and
queens - the Citizens of the several states, allowed themselves to become slaves of what has
become an all-powerful, all-sovereign U.S. government.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms


“Life” was specifically identified in the Declaration of Independence as one of
man’s “inalienable” rights. As such, logic and reason dictate that “We the People” also
have an inalienable right to protect and defend that life. In fact, we have a duty to do so.
Because a person has a right does not in itself guarantee that such right will not be
contested. It is a fundamental truth that rights are limited to those which are secured - those that
can be successfully defended. This truth inspired the passage of the Second Amendment into the
Bill of Rights. It warrants to “We the People” that our inalienable right to self-protection “hall not
be infringed” upon by the Federal government, which “We the People” created. It states,
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
At the heart of this Amendment is the absolute fact that the Federal government was given
no authority to, in any way, interfere with gun ownership by the sovereign Citizens and / or
their ability to defend themselves. The first half of the Amendment acknowledges also the
necessity of a “well regulated militia” to ensure the security of a free state. The primary
purpose of the Second Amendment is, therefore, to formally recognize the right of
sovereign Citizens to protect themselves so that they, in turn, can help to secure the State.
It provides the Citizens and the States that they shall not be denied the means by which to defend
themselves against a potentially hostile Federal government.
The declaration in the Second Amendment or our "right to keep and bear arms" has nothing
to do with hunting. Nor is adequacy of the general perception of appropriateness of a given
weapon to be considered. Citizens are lawfully at liberty to procure any weapon or
weapons they desire and deem appropriate to defend themselves, their homesteads, and finally,
the State from harm or aggression. Accordingly, neither the States of the Federal government
have the lawful authority to infringe upon, on in any way attempt to limit, this fundamental
inalienable right.
So too, the voters of a State lack the lawful authority to in any way attempt to restrict the
right of "We the People" to "keep and bear arms". Any such enactment is unlawful. See
Marbury vs. Madison, "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void".
True Conservatives are mindful of the historic fact that gun owners are not slaves. Slaves
do not own guns. However, in instances such as in Nazi Germany, when governments
want to enslave their citizens, the first prerequisite to such an attempt is to disarm the
public. True Conservatives are, therefore, embittered when they think how far “We the
People” have allowed our government to erode this most precious and fundamental inalienable
right.

Two Sets of International Laws


The Constitution gives to the United States government jurisdiction over the ten square
miles comprising Washington DC, as well as government buildings in the several states, and over
the U.S. possessions [Article 1, Sec. 8, CI.17]. In what are known as the Insular Tariff cases,
DeLima v. Bidwell and Downs v. Bidwell, the Supreme Court pointed out that “with respect to
the possessions, the United States government is at liberty to impose laws that are totally
inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, just as any sovereign may so place laws over its
subjects.” To contain such laws, Congress created a corporation named the United States of
America. Under that banner it passes laws particular to Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, the
Mariana Islands, etc., areas referred to for such purposes as “states”.
Article 1, Sections 6 and 10 give Congress authority to provide for the punishment for
“counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, and for piracy and felonies
committed on the high seas.” Other than for these crimes, the Federal government has no lawful
authority to charge, indict, or convict a sovereign Citizen of the several States. To do so, however,
the government names the United States of America as the Plaintiff and unscrupulously uses that
entity to bring bogus charges and obtain unlawful convictions against Citizens of the several States.
The reason the government is able to get away with this egregious practice is, it can be
argued, because the Citizens by and large believe that their government is honest. Furthermore,
these laws are made to look indistinguishable from the genuine laws of the land. Then, the
Citizenry, who are in general ignorant of law, turn to the legal profession for insight and help with
matters of law. In the process, many of the real issues involving Federal jurisdiction and
legislative authority are never raised thereby leaving the false perceptions of governmental
sovereignty in tact.
True Conservatives are appalled over the fact that the overwhelming majority of laws
coming out of Washington are unconstitutionally being applied to the States and the Citizens of
those States. They are also sickened to know that there are well over a hundred and fifty thousand
Americans unlawfully incarcerated in Federal prisons. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the
true issues that face our country, all but the True Conservatives argue in favor or against the
Democrats and Republicans, the leaders of whom represent two heads of the same snake.

Taxes
When considering the taxing authority to give the Federal government, the founders
considered the Bible. Exodus 30:15 says, "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not
give less than a half a shekel. •••. It was thus determined that the total of the money raised must
be acquired uniformly and equally from the people. In Mat. 17:24-26 we read, “And when
they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute came to Peter, and said, Doth not
your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus
prevented him, saying, What thinkest thon, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take
custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers.
Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.” With this understanding, the founders
determined that the tax burden should be borne primarily from “strangers” - foreigners. With
these principles in mind, they wrote the provisions of the Constitution that authorized the Federal
government to impose taxes.
The Founding Fathers understood that “the power to tax is the power to destroy”. This
fundamental premise of taxation was expressed by then Chief Justice John Marshall in McCullah v.
Mariland. With it was acknowledgment of the principle that “the servant can never have the
power to destroy the master.” Having those precepts in mind, the Founders gave to this new
government limited authority to impose taxes. Specifically, the Constitution authorizes Congress
to impose the Direct Tax [Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3; and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 4]; and the Indirect Tax [Art.
1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1]. The stipulations, however, are that Direct Taxes must be apportioned among the
several States according to the census, and Indirect Taxes must be applied uniformly across the
country. Accordingly, while Direct Taxes are applied to property and cannot be passed on to a
third party, Indirect Taxes take the form of excise taxes, tariffs, duties and imposts, which can be
passed on. Furthermore, whereas Direct Taxes cannot be avoided, a person can avoid paying an
Indirect Tax simply by not purchasing the product of accepting a privilege on which the tax was
imposed.
In the early part of the twentieth century, the Federal government acquired the lion's share
if its revenues via tariffs on products imported into the country. The money in surplus was quoted
as being “embarrassing". Clearly the revenue provisions were working. So too, by allowing the
Citizens to retain the fruits of their labor, they were able to put their surplus cash into capital
investments, which increased the demand for labor while it improved and increased the goods
available to consumers thereby allowing the standards of living to continually improve.
Then in 1913, Congress enacted the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
which stated that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on the incomes, from
whatever source derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to
any census or enumeration.” Much of the public was fooled into thinking that the tax was imposed
on the people of the several States. Though since it was supposedly imposed on those earning
over two hundred thousand dollars, and since the tax was but one half percent, it was not a big
issue.
In truth, however, “The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation .
.”, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. Furthermore, “The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend
the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects”, Peck v. Lowe. The fact is, the tax was
imposed, but not on the Citizens of the fifty States who earn their money within the fifty States. It
was imposed on the citizens of the U.S. possessions under the laws of the United States of
America.
True Conservatives detest the intrusion into our private affairs by the government as made
possible by the unlawful imposition of the Income Tax. Instead, they insist, the government must
abandon the tax in favor of a national sales tax.