Comments: 0

Comments: 0

We, the People are governed by GOD’s Laws and the Laws of Nature and it is His WILL that we live in peace and harmony with all Americans. Men cannot create “Laws” that force compliance over other men therefore all acts of “Legislation” which includes, codes, rules, statutes, ordinances, executive orders, resolutions, joint resolutions, Acts of Congress, bills are not applicable and enforceable unto We, the Sovereign People. (footnote 1) These acts legislation are ONLY applicable to the CORPORATE UNITED STATES, which includes ONLY its territories and possessions and contracted employees. Corporate United States? (footnote 2) Yes our created cooperative governance through legal (not lawful) manipulation has incorporated itself and the location of the headquarters is Washington D.C. Our national Constitution became their corporate charter but they have created corporate meanings of words and phrases of the Constitution not consistent with our Anglo-Saxon Language and not coinciding with our Founding ForeFathers’ intent of the meaning and purpose of our Constitution. So Congress works in a dual capacity 1) has power and authority to pass “Laws” for Americans but must do so in accordance to Constitutional guidelines and limitations and also in accordance to GOD’s Laws and the Laws of Nature and 2) can pass “Legislation” as described above only applicable to the corporate possessions where they have exclusive legislative authority which include but not limited to Guam, Philippine Islands, Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, ten square miles of Wash. D.C. buildings and forts.
It is expressly stated in our Constitution that each State shall be guaranteed a Republican form of government (footnote 3). The reason for this form of government is so to insure to all Americans a republican form of life which is of GOD’s WILL. A republican form of life is the way we are supposed to be living here in America and there is ONLY ONE law, GOD’s Law, English Common Law in a republic which states: Americans can do anything they want to as long as they do not infringe on other Americans’ property rights (footnote 4) and must abide to all lawful contracts they enter into (footnote 5). That is it. That is GOD’s WILL of life and is guaranteed by a Republican form of Governance. Now, we must realize that even though we are guaranteed a republican form of governance that guarantees a republican form of life, We, the People, must prove to our State and cooperative (federal) governances that we can be and are responsible enough to live this way. This is, in my opinion one of the reasons why our governances will not honor our constitutionally secured rights endowed to us by our creator. We, the People, here in America have not shown that we are responsible enough to exercise those rights and if we cannot be responsible enough to exercise those rights than we cannot claim to have them. Does this make sense?
In a republican form of governance there is ONLY ONE request from We, the People, requesting of our lower powered (we are the sovereigns) governances in all lawful matters and that is: PROVE THAT YOU HAVE LAWFUL JURISDICTION OVER ME AND/OR ALL AMERICANS. To all Americans, they DO NOT have either personal jurisdiction or subject-matter jurisdiction over US and they never did. Recall the maxim of law stated earlier: that which is created cannot have more power and authority over the creator. Does this not make sense? The executive branch of governance both at state level and federal level know that they do not have jurisdiction over us Americans and it is our responsibility to question ONLY jurisdiction unto the judicial branch of governance not whether an ACT of Congress is constitutional or not because it is constitutional for Congress to “pass legislation” that is applicable to ONLY the corporate United States. Here is a good Example. Recall the recent arguments in court by the State Attorney Generals over the constitutionality of the new Health Care Bill. The wrong argument was brought to court, the Attorney Generals who brought the lawsuits knew the federal government does not have jurisdiction over us Americans and so do the Judges but a judge cannot bring in outside info to a court case, they can only judge what is brought before them. So if the argument is of constitutionality and only of constitutionality the judges have no choice but to say it is constitutional but the right argument would have been “Does the federal government have jurisdiction over Americans such that the new Health Care Bill is lawfully applicable and enforceable upon them? Do you see the difference? Also please make note that in the Constitution it is explicitly expressed on the law making process. A bill must be originated in a house of Congress and it must pass through both houses and then onto the President’s office so he can sign it into Law (footnote 6). A “Bill” is never applicable to Americans because it is not passed as “LAW” i.e. the “Brady Bill” is not applicable to Americans.
In closing I will recap briefly. We, the People are the Sovereigns who hold all the political power of this nation and it is We, the People who created State and Federal governances whom the government personnel work for US as public servants. It is within their job descriptions as outlined in Our Constitutions on how they can and cannot perform. The branches of governance do not have jurisdiction over We, the People, especially the legislative branch and it is up to us, and it is our duty pursuant to Declaration of Independence to keep a check on their actions through questioning proof of jurisdiction. Once jurisdiction is questioned it must be proven before a case in court can continue and all judges know this. It is up to the judicial branch to decide constitutional jurisdiction and all judges by law take a sworn Oath of Office to uphold and abide by Our constitutions and it is our duty to make them aware that when they act outside their duties as prescribed in our Constitutions, they are not immune from prosecution. We must understand that We, the People are Sovereign in respect to our governances and they work for US and the branches of governance do not have jurisdiction over Americans unless we lawfully contract with them.
If there are any questions or comments directed to me please use phone number 419-871-2545 or use e-mail address: steelersfanalways@hotmail.com. I will gladly discuss any concerns.
Burton George; Wolf

Footnote 1: Caha v US 152 U.S. 211 (1894) Opinion of the court: U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the national government. Foley Brothers Inc. v Filardo 336 U.S. 281 (1949) Opinion of the court: U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, it is a well-established principle of law that all federal regulations applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears
Footnote 2: United States v Maurice 26 Fed. Cas. No 15, 747, 2 Brock 96, Circuit Court, D. Virginia, (1823) Opinion of the court: The United States is a governance, and, consequently a body politic and corporate… This great corporation was ordained and established by the American People Hooven and Allison Co. v Evatt 324 U.S. 652 Opinion of the court: the term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses; (1) it may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations [i.e. Japan, England, France, Africa] (2) it may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends [i.e. the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.] (3) it may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution [i.e. the 50 sovereign States of the Union]
Footnote 3: Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Footnote 4: Preterm Cleveland v Voinovich (Franklin 1993) 89 Ohio App. 3d 684, 627 N.E. 2d 570 Opinion of the court: Under Ohio Constitution’s Bill of Rights every person has inalienable rights under natural law that cannot be unduly restricted by government, which is formed for purpose of securing and protecting those rights, and all governmental power depends on consent of the people. In general, provisions of Ohio Constitution guaranteeing enjoyment of life and liberty confers upon individual right to do whatever he or she wishes to do so long as there is no VALID [emphasis added] law proscribing such conduct and so long as conduct does not infringe upon rights of others recognized by common law; it is only where there is law prohibiting express conduct that one may not so act and in all other cases, person doing act that unduly interferes with enjoyment of life and liberty by others is responsible for damages or other sanctions for such act.
Footnote 5: In order for a contract to be lawful it must possess certain criteria 1) full disclosure of all aspects of all parties 2) equal consideration meaning all parties must give something of value pursuant to the contract 3) lawful terms and conditions meaning all do’s and don’t’s and must be lawful 4) signatures of all parties so to demonstrate a “meeting of the minds”
Footnote 6: Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution: Sect. 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass a bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

1. financial responsibility and accountability insuring that all investments made with tax payer funds be examined and decided on the basis of a sound business plan, adequate capital investment of its partners and stock holders, and the expectation of long-term success; and further, that all profits, interest, earnings on property and securities from whatsoever source are proportioned back to the states and the taxpayers;

2. demanding and receiving from all nations to whom we provide security, payment for the expenses incurred by our government and its taxpayers to furnish them with our military personnel, equipment, ordinance, and safe quarters while on their lands; and to further insure the paid medical care of all wounded in action both short term and permanent, coupled with a sustainable monthly allowance to support their families, and paying a delegated amount to the families of all killed in action, or as a result of being stationed on their land;

3. imposing work demands upon all prisoners sentenced to incarceration for more than 90 days, to provide for their detention expenses, daily necessities, and to provide for the welfare of their dependents; actions that will greatly diminish the tax burden on the American people;

4. taxation on the purchase and consumption of goods rather than personal or business incomes, a principle supported by Alexander Hamilton in the 14th Federalist paper;

5. eliminate the Department of Education and restore to the states their proper right to exercise full oversight and controls over the education and curricula of all educational institutions within its jurisdictions;

6. restoration of religious expressions and practice without hindrance;

7. the right to bear arms in every city and state in the union for our self protection without unnecessary restraint and limitation, for the purpose of securing our persons and property from both foreign and domestic terrorism and threats; excepting only the right to disarm those who are, or become, members of known and recognized terrorist groups and gangs;

8. the security as before provided for all generations in the Bill of Rights, and a government transparent to, and accountable to, the people and Congress of the United States.

9. that all laws, regulations, taxes, and restrictions imposed on the citizens must be equally obligatory and enforceable on every member and employee of the federal government and its assigns without exception.

These policy positions are firmly embodied in the duties, obligations, and responsibilities inherent in the laws of fiduciary responsibility and trusteeship which was made incumbent upon the federal government when our forefathers “vested” certain cherished financial trusts, invaluable sovereign and sacred rights, and other “treasures” of great value to the states, they placed under its protections; whose duty it is to protect, defend, and secure these certain and valued rights and trusts committed to them and enumerated in the document we refer to as the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, I submit to the peace-loving people of this district, and this state that no one entrenched in the foxholes of government domination is going to “give back” the rights they have usurped for their own enrichment. IT BECOMES THEREFORE, ENCUMBENT UPON US, the Common People, TO REPLACE those in the Congress and Senate who have not left their secure foxholes, have not condemned the usurpation of the people’s rights and liberties, have not attempted to restrain the appropriation of additional powers from the states, and have not taken steps to limit the powers of the government, nor have begun to initiate action to restore our sacred rights, even those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the governed.
Of particular mention, we must examine the record of those who profess themselves to be conservative Republicans, and determine if they have STOOD THEIR GROUND in DEFIANCE of these illegal and unconstitutional acts, or caved in to the demands of this administration to further encroach upon and usurp our rights; and if it be determined they have not stood their ground in defense of the sacred trust committed to their keeping, THEY MUST, of NECESSITY, ALSO BE RESPLACED.

I am advocating for the election of individuals committed to supporting and defending the principles and the sacred confidence originally vested by our forefathers in the federal government: individuals who will engage in a strong, determined, yet peaceable means of restoring our government to its proper place of strength in matters foreign and domestic.

Of grave importance, they must immediately begin to create a stable environment aimed at alleviating the fears of the electorate who have begun to question the government’s loyalty to uphold the sacred fiduciary trust delegated to it by the people.

It is reported that our government is preparing the military and police for a national revolt. If this is true, I submit that the fear and apprehension within the hearts of Americans losing hope of a bright and successful future for themselves and their children is well documented by the administration. Otherwise, why the preparation? But should a government wary of revolt prepare to kill its own citizens instead of making the changes necessary to promote the peace and general welfare of its citizens? Is our government going to mimic the insufferable tragedies upon us that King Assad of Syria, is waging against his own people -choosing to kill his own people rather than give way to progressive change? Is this the future we envision for ourselves and our loved ones?

Revolution may be at our doorsteps, but do we welcome it? Do we support an uprising that will devastate our nation and bring death and misery to its citizens; or do we make every attempt to deter violence and put the people at rest? We must breathe the fresh air of a legitimate hope and change policy in an attempt to restore the hope that our government will be restored. That our policies will bring about economic recovery and stability, a definite increase in employment opportunities, lower taxes, and establishing the bond of unity between a people that have been so divided against each other. This is the only way that I know of to avoid the much anticipated bloodshed.

Once again, the weight and burden is upon us, the people, to vote the opportunists out of office and to vote those among us into office who share our core values and virtues, and who desire the blessings of God upon our nation and our children to the third and fourth generations of those who believe in Him.
I have presented a peaceable plan of action that will not advance the violence the government is anticipating. As Congressman Paul Ryan was known to say many times, “WE CAN DO THIS!”

A major portion of this text was taken from a speech I gave before a Republican assembly when I ran for Congress in 1986. It was a message out of time, and will undoubtedly have a far greater influence if I were to give it today. Nevertheless, it is a positive message, and while we may make certain statements to point out the actions of those in government, we must refrain from using names and deliberate personal attacks. This is what we all desire, “Tell me what YOU are going to do to make a difference – We already know what the other isn’t doing, or DID!”

I would be more than honored to see the essence of this message being proclaimed by every candidate running for office in 2014, because I believe this message is timely, impossible to contradict or successfully dispute, and I am convinced if it is included in the platform of the New Revitalized Republican Party, the true Party of the People, it will result in many victories for Conservative Christians, Friends of Israel, and people of virtue of all faiths. If called upon, I would be honored to present this message personally before the citizens of your communities. But, it is far more important, of grave importance, to get this message into the hands of those who would be faithful candidates and elected officials for federal office in 2014. If you believe this is the message for today, then spread the word as quickly and with as much energy as you possess. Let this be our charge, the conviction of our hearts, “We must have the majority in the Senate and in the House!”

Thank you and God bless all your efforts and successes.

Rev. Anthony Mucciolo
tonymorro@gmail.com

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

In reference to the National Tea Party Patriots mission statements: fiscal responsibility; constitutionally limited government; free markets; what is the ultimate goal? Is it not to discover, endorse, and support that individual who best represents those objectives? Let’s be real! Are there any candidates that can be defined as “perfect” in the view of every one of us in the Tea Party Coalition, who all have differing interpretations as to how to best fulfill our mission? And that is perfectly legitimate. So again, what is the ultimate goal? We should unite to endorse and support that one or those that most closely embrace our mission, because if we don’t, our voting voice will be diluted and those who do not best embrace our core values will win by default. In light of this reality, my suggestion is that the one Presidential candidate that most closely embraces all the values and principles of the Tea Party mission is Newt Gingrich, and his record has always shown that.

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0