Constitution

Oct

2017

Some Founders Seldom Heard. Why?

by Michael Gaddy

Some Founders Seldom Heard. Why?

The vast majority of Americans have been taught by the Public Fool System, Leviathan’s historians and religious con-artists, that a group of devoutly religious men, the majority of whom were in total agreement on the tenets of government, got together in 1787 and came up with a constitution that was widely accepted and is exactly what our politicians, judges and law enforcement observe today as they go about their business.

We all have heard of James Madison who bears the title of “Father of the Constitution.” Strange indeed considering the plan of government Madison wrote and transmitted to George Washington in April of 1787 and was presented at the convention as the “Virginia Plan,” was overwhelmingly rejected at that convention. Perhaps Madison deserves the title because the proposal he wrote is almost exactly the form of government we live under today. A system of government where the central government is supreme over all and the States have been relegated to “mere corporations” with little to no say so in the conduct of the central government.

Founders Washington, Henry and Pendleton Travel to the First Congress

So, who were these virtually unknown founders and what did they have to say about what the constitution, if ratified, would lead to in our country? And more importantly were they correct in their predictions?

Portrait of George Bryan, President (Governor) of Pennsylvania in the 1770s

First, let us take a look at George Bryan of Pennsylvania. Is he a person that any high school graduate would be able to expound upon as a founder of our country? Would he/she even recognize the name? How many adults do you know who recognize this man? Considering he said the following might be why he is not popularly quoted.

“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of very small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and whatever plan you might, at first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.”

Please remember; the “extensive country” spoken of by George Bryan was only 13 States at the time of his statement. Now, who was correct, Bryan or Madison about what kind of government would issue from our Constitution? Who is more widely known?

Was George Bryan alone in his visionary outlook? Certainly not; he was joined by many more of our “founders” you have possibly never heard about.

John Dickinson of Delaware (1732-1808)

There was of course John Dickinson of Delaware. Dickinson had this to say on the subject.

“We cannot have a limited monarchy…our situation will not allow it—Repubs. [Republics] are for awhile industrious but finally destroy themselves—they were badly constituted—I dread a consolidation of the States.”

Considering the passive acceptance of signing statements, executive orders and the prosecution of unconstitutional wars, who could deny that we have a full blown monarchy—not just a limited one? Certainly our early Republic was “industrious” until Abraham Lincoln, operating under the powers of a Monarch, completely discarding the Constitution along the way, destroyed the principles of consent of the governed and definitely instituted a “consolidation of the States” with bullets, cannons and bayonets.

So, we have Bryan and Dickinson—were they alone in their predictions?

Theophilus Parsons; The Social Law Library, Boston, MA.

I’m sure almost everyone is familiar with Theophilus Parsons of Massachusetts. Certainly he is mentioned right along with the Nationalists Madison and Hamilton. Parsons stated:

“Any law…of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state is usurpation and void.”

~1788

Wow. Is there any wonder we don’t hear men like Theophilus quoted in political debates, or cited in a Supreme Court ruling?

The above were joined in their political beliefs by none other than Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina, who stated in his state’s ratification convention:

“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that, consequently, it can never intemeddle where no power is given.”

~1788

Hmmm—try telling this to the Director of the BLM or those who implemented Obamacare!

William Richardson Davie portrait attributed to Fauret de Saint-Memin

What about the words of the very well known and often quoted in today’s political landscape, William Richardson Davie, also of North Carolina?

“If there were any seeds in this Constitution which might, one day, produce a consolidation [of the States] it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection, I am so perfectly convinced that so extensive a country as this can never be managed by one consolidated government…if the state governments vanish, the general government must vanish also…the state governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.”

~1788

Well, again, Abraham Lincoln certainly destroyed this concept. Ever wonder why the Republican Party refers to themselves as the “Party of Lincoln?” They sure as hell can’t claim to be that and claim to support our Constitution at the same time!

Rawlins Lowndes of South Carolina

Let’s move along to another well known authority on constitutional intent and what it would become in the future. You are right—-none other than the man mentioned by all candidates for public office and state and federal judges— Rawlins Lowndes of South Carolina, also in 1788:

“The Treaty of Peace [Treaty of Paris 1783] expressly agreed to acknowledge us as free, sovereign, and independent states, which privileges we lived at present in the exercise of. But this new constitution at once swept those privileges away, being sovereign over all; so that this state would dwindle into a mere skeleton of what it was; its legislative powers would be pared down to little more than those now vested in a corporation; and he would value the honor of a seat of the legislature no higher esteem than a seat in the city council.”

Could it be this country honors the wrong Lincoln? Perhaps we need a political party of Lincoln—founder James Lincoln of South Carolina—who said:

“What does this proposed Constitution do? It changes, totally changes, the form of your present government. What have you been contending for these ten years past? Liberty! What is Liberty? The power of governing yourselves. If you adopt this Constitution have you this power? No: you give it into the hands of a set of men who live one thousand miles distant from you. Let the people but once trust their liberties out of their own hands, and what would be the consequence? First, a haughty, imperious aristocracy; and ultimately a tyrannical monarchy.”

John Ten Eyck Lansing Jr. Chancellor of New York In office 1801–1814

Then, of course, there is John Lansing of New York; who, along with Robert Yates, walked out of the Philadelphia Convention because they felt the convention was exceeding the powers that had been granted to them by the people of New York. Wow—what a display of integrity. Perhaps that is why neither one of these men is widely quoted today—either by court historians or the general public. Here is what Lansing had to say about the proposed constitution at the New York State Ratification Convention. Was he right?

“Sir, if you do not give the states the power to protect themselves, if you leave them no other check upon Congress than the power of appointing Senators, they will certainly be overcome.”

(Note: the not properly amended 17th Amendment took away that check too.)

Edmund Pendleton of Virginia would state during his state’s ratification debates, while agreeing with Patrick Henry, the following:

Edmund Pendleton 1872. 1st Chief Justice of Virginia. 1872 engraving by H.B. Hall.

“If this be such a government [consolidated] I will confess, with my worthy friend [Henry] that it is inadmissible over such a territory as this country. Let us consider whether it be such a government or not. I should understand a consolidated government to be that which would have the sole and exclusive power, legislative, executive and judicial without any limitation. Is this such a government? Or can it be changed to such a one? It only extends to the general purposes of the Union. It does not intermeddle with the local particular affairs of the state.”

What we have in our country today is what Edmund Randolph described in the above—a completely consolidated government that claims “sole and exclusive power, legislative, executive and judicial, without any limitation.” That is not the government that was promised to those who ratified the Constitution in 1787-88!

It is the government of Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, John Jay, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W Bush, Barack Obama, the US Supreme Court, federal and state judges, the law enforcement community and everyone who is running for president from both political parties in 2016.

Could it be that is why the names in the above paragraph are recognized by almost everyone, but the names of Bryant, Dickinson, Lowndes, Davie, Parsons, Lansing, Pendleton and James Lincoln are virtually unknown today—especially among politicians, educators, judges and the population as a whole?

The powers of today’s government are stolen powers, taken from the States and the people, and have led to the current state of affairs in our country. We are beyond broke; presidents use unconstitutional powers of the monarch; congress has laid down like a scared puppy, wetting the floor at the feet of the military/industrial/banking complex; our children and grandchildren are taught the laws of the tyrant are sacrosanct; the culture that founded this country is ridiculed and demonized and our government has taken on the mantle of a religion to the masses.

This was not the form of government that was ratified by the founders most have never heard of. Believe me—the fact you don’t know who they are and what they said is no accident.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Oct

2017

MAGNA CARTA – Brent Allan Winters

Eight hundred years ago, the year 1215, Stephen Langton wrote Magna Carta in a moment's notice, King John signed it at the points of swords, and the Roman pope outlawed both Magna Carta and its drafter Steven Langton—because it is contrary to the civil-canon law of Rome.

Stephen Langton, King John, and that Roman pope are now gone. Magna Carta, however, lives on.

Magna Carta was rendered up from the sharpest adversity, a foundation of our common-law way of life. And since its signing, Magna Carta—as now also our United States Constitution—has been hacked, amended, cussed, misconstrued, and even chucked into the dustbin of history. Powerful men have read its eulogy, put it into a coffin, dug its grave, and formed its funeral procession. But somehow the intended corpse has refused to stay put, and understandably so, because its principles are timeless.

One of four surviving copies of the 1215 Magna Carta. This copy is one of two held at the British Library. It came from the collection of Sir Robert Cotton, who died in 1631. In 1731, a fire at Ashburnam House in Westminster, where his library was then housed, destroyed or damaged many of the rare manuscripts, which is why this copy is burnt.

Magna Carta in a Nutshell

Magna Carta begins—and ends—by declaring the Church in England free from all other powers, both foreign (Rome's pope) and domestic (England's Crown). It next follows with detailed protection of widows and orphans—a constant theme of the Bible. Then it limits the power of the banker's cabals of usury and bars the national government (the English Crown) from direct, personal tax-collection power over individuals; forbidding tax collectors, for instance, from taking a man's draught animals and tools necessary for him to feed his family or to satisfy a claimed tax obligation—also the Bible's first principle. It then follows with guarantees of due process (timely notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and consent) before being taxed and trial by a jury of one's peers (neighbors).

And above all, Magna Carta affirms the required consent of the common-law jury of one's peers before the power of government may be used to take a man's life, liberty, or property—thus echoing the jury principle of both the Older and the Newer Testaments. Indeed, our own United States Constitution's limits for government are strikingly alike to Magna Carta's—not only in general principles but also in particulars.

Reasons for Magna Carta = Reasons for U.S. Constitution

The reasons Englishmen insisted upon Magna Carta are even more curious for their strong likeness to the reasons Americans now insist upon the courses of our common law: oppression of Islamic law, enslavement to usurious debt, and plundering of our valuable land by foreign powers.

Consider these facts:

First, King John, forced signer of Magna Carta, had promised the Islamic Sultan of Morocco that he would decree all England Islamic if the Sultan would loan him all the money he needed to fight the landholders of England, thus allowing Islamic law to replace England's common
law.

Second, King John had borrowed money from phariseeism's cabalistic moneylenders of England at outlandish interest rates of between 43 1/3 and 86 2/3 percent, per year, thus enslaving all England's landholders and descendants in never-ending debt—from the richest old Thane in the county to the lowest serf chained to the field.

Third, King John granted all of England's land to Rome's pope as the pope's personal fief, thus allowing the pope to collect the lion's share of taxes on all the produce of England's land.

Simply put, King John had sold his own country—high-born and low—down river into the three-fold tyranny of that ancient, yet ever-threatening, antagonist of freedom called Babylonianism:

(1) Babylon's law of the city (in this case, Islamic law), instead of God's law of the land (called our common law);

(2) enslavement of the country by bondage to usurers (called phariseeistic moneylenders, bankers), instead of freedom from debt;

(3) income taxation by demand of a foreign power (in this case the Vatican), instead of taxation by consent of the country.

Bottom line: King John had sold his own country into slavery of Islam's lawlessness, bankers' usury, and popery's taxation—the same three evils Americans now face.

Maga Carta Passes the Reliability Test

Without question, Magna Carta is a solid stepping stone—well-placed in a long line of stepping stones—of that common law which our Declaration of '76 calls the law of Nature unwritten in creation, meant to be observed and recognized, but always to be tested against that second grand volume of God's revelation of His will, which our Declaration of '76 calls the laws of Nature's God written in our Bible. As such, Magna Carta did that which our own Constitution of the United States also did: it sought not to establish anything new, but rather, to reach back, capture, re-established, and strengthened that which is old, namely, the laws of nature called the common law of the land. And this common law, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, is cleaner and more sensitive to individual rights of liberty, respecting life and property, than is the law of the city.

John Wycliffe accords, calling the law of the city "evil menes law," such as the civil law of Islam, of Rome, and of usurers. But these laws of Nature, observable in the nature of things, in life, and in relationships are—as our common law and Declaration of '76 both put it—consonant with the laws of
Nature's God written in our Bible. And this consonance stands to reason: Magna Carta's drafter Stephen Langton was not only the foremost Old-Testament commentator of his day but also provider of our Bible's present chapter divisions.

Thus does Magna Carta reflect our Bible's leading principles. Accordingly, it is said that Magna Carta not only remains in force but always will remain in force because it recognizes and affirms timeless principles, which, even though unwritten, are, nevertheless seeable—indeed obvious—in the nature of things; and further, are consonant with the laws of nature's God called the Bible.

The Big Paper Called Magna Carta Demands Our Response

Though King John signed Magna Carta in the year 1215, followed by Wycliffe having planted the seeds of how to enjoy its liberty, Magna Carta stayed asleep and unused until about the year 1529.

Parliament, had not met for seven years due to the despotic rule of the butcher's son of Ipswitch—the Roman papist called cardinal Wolsey. Then on 3 November of 1529, Henry VIII. called Parliament together. The times were ripe. This meeting released God's pent-up gumption-breath from Englishmen into the theretofore dead letter and dry bones of Magna Carta, quickening its words, raising from ground the law of the land. From that time forward, Magna Carta had behind it driving force—volts for its amps—; the United States of America is one of its chief results.

To be sure, Magna Carta's first principles are best understood in light of the threats Englishmen faced at that time of its drafting. But the same three threats of those times that drove Stephen Langton to draft Magna Carta, again rear their ugly heads: false law of Islam, enslavement to banker's usurious debt, and—to force payment the interest on that unlawful debt—, taxation of income. But further, the remedy to all such lawlessness remains, now as then, true law.

Thus must each American seek in his family, locally, and at every point, first, to purge the false law of Islam with our Declaration of '76's two-volume set of laws, the laws of nature learned from creation and the laws of nature's God learned from our Bible; second, to purge the banker's cabalistic monopoly of usury with the revival of real money, gold and silver coin; and third, to purge unlawful taxation with State and national legislation overturning the income tax.

Brent Allan Winters grew up on a farm north of Moonshine, Illinois; served as diver, U.S. Navy Mobile Diving Unit 1 and aboard carrier USS Coral Sea; worked as a geologist and mine operator; and ran for U.S. Congress. Brent has briefed cases in the United States Supreme Court, argued before the jury and appellate courts (both State and Federal), has represented clients in foreign countries, and clerked for a state appellate court judge.

Source: MAGNA CARTA