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.