Mr. Obama promised change.  Will this promise be the only one he is able to fulfill?  Not if we have a say in it.  What exactly is Obama's idea of change?  What has changed? What is changing?  Is his notion of change something we can believe in?

So far, the only definitive change is in the conversation about the role of the federal government as it pertains to the economy and the lives of the American people.  It is by and through this discussion, foisted upon the American People by juxtaposing our greed against the deceitful trickery of the world banking cartel, that a political philosophy, repugnant to American jurisprudence, has infiltrated the minds of many unsuspecting Americans.  We need only look as far as the doctrine of "necessity," used by politicians enlisted to betray the American People, to discover the means to this end.   We need only look into a mirror to discover our remedy.

As always, public opinion is following suit.  It is being coerced to accept by faith a stabilizing belief in this foreign political philosophy, the natural consequence of which is a rudimentary shift in what is considered "acceptable" governmental policy.  The dogmatic culmination of which are governmental actions masquerading as legitimate, not adopted as such by men and women representing the People's interests, but by sold out politicians acting as minions of global bankers.  This change is not one we can believe in, as tacit acceptance would be tantamount to the consent to treason against the Sovereign American people.

What we are not being told and what may not be fully understood is that our acceptance of this NeoAmerican (National Fascism) philosophy is wholly dependent on our choice whether to consent to it or not. Though many may believe we haven't a choice, I assure you, there is always a choice.  No matter our choice, it will cost us.  The question is, what price are we willing to pay?

The reality in which we each live is the circumstance of the sum total of all our choices resulting in the conversations within which we engage. If Obama is successful in distracting us from the simple American conversation about the fundamental principles of freedom, Obama and his insurgency movement will win.  But if we successfully distract those seduced by Obama's democratic socialist conversation, Americans win. If Americans engage Obama in his conversation, America will lose.  If Obama engages Americans in our conversation he loses. This calls for great subtle wisdom in our approach.

To be successful, we need only engage in one simple conversation:  The Truth!!!

The Supreme Court has spoken to the concern of unconstitutional acts passed into law. Essentially what has been held is that an "unconstitutional law," like "hot ice," is an impossible oxymoron. An unconstitutional act is void "ab initio" i.e. the moment it is signed into "law." The "void ab initio" doctrine received its classic formulation in the case of Norton v. Shelby Co.118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886) wherein it was held that:  "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights;  it imposes no duties;  it affords no protection, it creates no office;  it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not a crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.").

Bottom line?  The American people have a duty not to consent to an unconstitutional act masquerading as law.  If Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president, all his decisions under the guise of that capacity are void.

As members of the sovereignty, to remain consistent with the principles of the declaration of independence, the American people have a duty not to dignify a statute passed that is repugnant to the constitution.  Though failure to comply could be perceived as an act of civil disobedience by the ignorant, in truth, if the agent has transgressed the principal's delegation of power, the principal has a duty to call the agent on it to avoid giving the appearance of consent.

The United States of America, as well as the governments of the 50 States are created and established by constitutions.  A constitution is analogous to a power of attorney.  For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign; and the government their agent.  The constitution both grants power and limits power granted.

State constitutions, unlike the federal constitution, grant to lawmakers the plenary power to make law.  In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States, and further restricts that power by the first ten articles in amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The Tenth article in Amendment reserves all power not granted by the federal constitution or prohibited by it to the states, to the People.

In the States, the restraining factors on the power of government are: 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do); and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress.  When the government makes a law it does not possess power to enforce, the exercise is void.  But  the exercise of power must be challenged as void.  The burden of proof is on the challenger.

All American governments are established consistent with the principles of the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the presumption exists in favor of the American People with respect to all acts of their government that the purpose of government is to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that should laws be passed destructive to this end, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government. Regardless whether the people abolish government or not, any unconstitutional act of government is illegitimate and the people have a duty to withdraw their consent to that act, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.

Contemporary political philosophies have and are being reshaped by the perceived needs and wants of policy makers.  But should political philosophy be shaped by perceived need, or should law be shaped by political philosophy?  In America today, laws are passed under the guise of necessity, that the end justifies the means, and these laws are reshaping our conversation, and overthrowing America's fundamental philosophy. For example, bank bailouts and economic stimulus laws though wholly unconstitutional in their scope, are deemed "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental union policy to the contrary.  Necessity has always been the tool of choice used by tyrants to forge the shackles of despotism.

This is America, and union policy cannot lawfully be overridden by a series of despotic acts under the guise of necessity.  To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of union policy specifically stated that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "

There can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, one true conversation, one dominant reality, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental union policy of freedom is subject to righteous overthrow. The choice is ours.

Obama promised change.  This may be the only campaign promise he is able to fulfill.  But change to what? What has changed or is changing?

The conversation is what has changed and is being changed, and through the new conversation, a change in political philosophy is occurring. Through this new philosophy, a change in opinion and policy is occurring, and through opinion and policy, a change in law, and through this change in law, a change in the reality in which we live.

What we are not being told is that our acceptance of this reality is dependent on a choice we make to consent to it or not.   Many believe there is no choice, but there is always a choice.

The reality in which we each live is a choice determined by the conversation in which we engage. If Obama distracts us from our conversation about fundamental American principles, he wins.  If we distract those seduced by Obama's conversation, we win. If we engage Obama in his conversation, we lose.  If Obama engages us in our conversation he loses.

But who is "we?"  Who am I? It is possible that I am just like you.

I am nobody particularly special.  I am a common Joe, a blue collar enterprenuer, but more importantly one of the American People who, like you, loves my Freedom.

To be successful, here is the conversation to which I suggest we consent, the reality in which we must choose to agree to trump Obama's conversation: Truth. 

"And what is the truth," you ask?  "My truth, your truth, who's truth?"  Why not rather ask, "my perception, your perception, who's perception?"  If we reduce truth to being a mere perspective, these questions are germain; but if we distinguish the truth as being an absolute, like 1 + 1 = 2, we take Truth out of the realm of the arbitrary relative obscure, and into the state of reality where it belongs.

What is truth?  Let's simplify it by saying, something happens. I witness it.  What happened is what happened. What I perceived about what happened is merely my impression about the facts I saw.  My impression about what I saw is merely my point of view, my "story" about what happened. Although one could say that what one saw was true, the truth is that everything one sees is prejudiced by the perceptions one believes about one's self, and the world within which they live.

Reducing our respective realities to this simple framework, we can find agreement in that all of us live our lives within the framework of the respective stories coloring the truths about our life and the lives of those around us. Our reality, the world in which we live, is therefore merely a construct of the sum total of our perspectives, a complex labyrinth of our own making, a matrix of our mind controlled by the perspectives we hold about truth.

"You've been living in a dream world Neo."

Mix and stir this concept with the truth that each of us live in a world with others, each of whom lives in a labyrinth they consider reality.  Is it any wonder we aren't getting along? Particularly if each of us holds that the perspective we each believe in is true, that our belief system is the right one, and for the world to be a better place, everyone simply needs to agree with us!

Having laid this foundation, let's now look through the Supreme Court's perspective about law.

An "unconstitutional law," like "hot ice," is an impossibiity, an oxymoron. Such an act is void "ab initio" i.e. the moment it is signed into "law."

The void ab initio doctrine received its classic formulation in  Norton v. Shelby Co.:  "An unconstitutional act is not a law;  it confers no rights;  it imposes no duties;  it affords no protection, it creates no office;  it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886).  See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not a crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.").

Truth or perspective?  The United States of America, as well as the governments of the 50 States are created and established by a constitution.  A constitution is analogous to a power of attorney or agency.  For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign, the government their agent.  The constitution both grants power and limits power granted.  

Truth or Perspective? State constitutions, unlike the constitution for the United States of America, grant to lawmakers the plenary power to make law.  In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States, and further restricts that power by the first ten articles in amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment provides that all power not granted by the constitution or prohibited by it to the states, is retained by the States or the People.

Truth or Perspective?  In the States, the restraining factors on the power of government are: 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do; and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress.  When the government makes and enforces a law it does not possess power to make and enforce, the exercise is void.  But  the exercise of power must be challenged as void.  The burden of proof is on the challenger.

Truth or Perspective?  All American governments are established consistent with the principles of the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the presumption exists in favor of the American People with respect to all acts of their government  that the purpose of government is to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that should laws be passed destructive to this end, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government. Regardless whether the people abolish government or not, any unconstitutional act of government is illegitimate and the people have a duty to withdraw their consent to that act, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.

Truth or Perspective?  Contemporary political philosophies are shaped by the perceived needs and wants of the policy makers.  But should political philosophy be shaped by law, or law by political philosophy? In America today, laws are passed by necessity, that the end justifies the means, and these laws are  shaping our conversation, our philosophy. For example, the Patriot act, though unconstitutional in its scope, is "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental Union Policy to the contrary.  Necessity has always been the tool of tyrants to forge the shackles of despotism.

Truth or Perspective? This is America, and Union Policy cannot lawfully be overridden by despotism in the name of necessity, for in America government is established for one purpose: To secure the unalienable rights endowed in all by the Creator.  Should government become destructive to this end, the government ceases to be government and the people have a right to abolish it and begin again.  To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of Union Policy specifically stated that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the form of government to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "

Truth or Perspective?  There can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, one true conversation, one dominant reality, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental Union Policy is subject to righteous overthrow.  That one policy is this:  The Creator endowed each man and woman with certain unalienable rights.  Government is established to secure those rights.  Chief among those rights are Liberty and use of property.  Is my exercise of Liberty dangerous?  Absolutely! I might hurt someone if I am free to exercise my Liberty.  I might damage someone if I use my property.  Such is the risk of Freedom! And if America were truly Free, America would be a very dangerous place to live, as there would be very little security! But do security and freedom ever dwell simultaneously in the same place?

The time for talk being over, the time for ending our personal independence is now.

The eye cannot say to the hand, because you are not an eye, I don't need you.  Everyone is important, and that is the essence of freedom. As a natural consequence of living in a society, we each contribute either directly or indirectly to each other's experience,  ideally not by dominating, but by enhancing.

We are not all socialists now, capitulating solely to the needs of the machinery. Rather, we are spirit beings having a human experience.

No individual is an island to themselves. We live in a society sharing a certain heritage.  That heritage is the very freedom being threatened by those who are not of our heritage, but desire to establish a heritage of their own.  A heritage where they are the taskmaster, and we, the slaves.

We can resist and thwart their effort now or liberate ourselves by rebelling later.

"[I]f you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only with a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill.

Hang Together

Knowing that a house divided against itself will not stand, were Benjamin Franklin here today he would encourage us to set aside that which divides us, i.e. our egos, personal agendas, and our differences, as well as the strife causing the envy and quarreling among us, and to come together as one people, "One nation under God, indivisible."  So together with Ben Franklin, I too say, 

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin, speaking in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

In a letter from Paris in 1784 to Charles Thomson, just after signing the Paris Peace Treaty acknowledging American independence, Benjamin Franklin warned, "A few years of peace will improve, will restore and increase our strength; but our future will depend on our union and our virtue***. Let us, therefore, beware of being lulled into a dangerous security; and of being both enervated and impoverished by luxury; of being weakened by internal contentions and divisions***."

Security is indeed the selfish mantra of those who assuage their primal fear by putting their faith, hope and trust in institutions, rather than our Heavenly Father, to protect their position and their wealth--a selfish impetus ultimately splintering and dividing those infected by it. This is why Franklin would say to them, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We should have little interest in persuading those who choose security over liberty, who have sold or are willing to sell their "birthright for a mess of pottage," as such are either unable or unwilling to consider that there is a problem, let alone the possibility that they are part of that problem. Rather, we who are blessed with eyes that see must gather with those of like mind, with those who are unwilling to sell out by contributing to America's demise.  We must stand together courageously with those willing to stand.  We must uncompromisingly sacrifice with those willing to sacrifice, and we must set aside our differences with those willing to discuss viable means of enforcing our grievances and reclaiming our lost heritage of Freedom.

We the People Congress of Colorado has some momentum going, and we will keep it going! Those who are in denial must move through their anger! Those procrastinating must do so no longer, putting off to an unknown future what can be accomplished today.  Those waiting for someone else to something must do it themselves! The time is at hand for We the true American People to set aside our selfish agendas and stand united as E Pluribus Unum. Failure is not an option, as it may doom us to the humiliation of being brought to our knees while we beg for relief from the very globalists who orchestrated economic chaos while we chose to ignore the truth.

NEVER!!!!

The whole world is watching Americans with great interest.  In a 1777 letter to Samuel Cooper, Franklin expressed that the cause of liberty is not merely an arbitrarily relativistic perspective limited to the American People, noting that, "It is a common observation here (Paris) that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."  As goes freedom in America, so goes freedom in the world.

Will any future scenario provide a better opportunity than the present for championing Freedom? The Continental Congress is a good cause around which we can circle our wagons. It provides the rare opportunity for us to unite our voices and coordinate our efforts.  It is an idea whose time has come, a truly American conversation about Freedom through Unity and Accountability.

The American Conversation

It was Henry David Thoreau who said, "There are a thousand hacking away at the branches for every one striking at the root."  What does this look like?  Millions of "Americans" running around like headless chickens, ever perceiving but never seeing the problem, let alone the solution.  Who can solve a problem by treating a symptom?  Does not pruning a bush simply cause it to grow back fuller and stronger?  How will throwing money at a symptom not exacerbate the problem?

Although America may appear to some to be spiraling out of control, it is not. Rather, the American People are lost and need only revisit their roots. To do this we must understand that America is an idea expressed through conversation-a contrivance existing by agreement in our minds.  Is mere dissent to a conversation enough to trump it?  If so, the idea prompting the conversation was not persuasive to begin with, or those engaged were either not convinced of its merits or failed to understand them. 

America is a conversation about an ideal, the latest rendition of the principle of freedom, an ideal as far away as it is believed to be. Thoughts of freedom  precede the conversation of freedom.  The battlefield for freedom is not on earth, but ultimately in our minds. America is championed relative to our conversation about freedom.

Freedom is not the conversation of the present "Administration."   If freedom is lost, it is because Americans have a propensity of being seduced into abandoning the conversation about the ideal for a more enticing conversation, the most current of which is security via democratic socialism.

Some argue that the term "America" means "Heavenly Dominion."  This is consistent with the certain self-evident principles upon which America is established--those expressed by the First Continental Congress in the instrument known as the Declaration of Independence. I question whether the American conversation has taken place since the ink dried on this foundational document.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever a government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and provide new guards for their future security * * *"

Lest we forget, this is the American conversation.