thursday letter

guess i may have offended some of you in this ‘movement’ by implying that i thought there may be a stalkish weirdness involved in my first meeting with your kind.  i apologize but need to be honest for a second.

some questions i feel the need to ask:

  • if you are just a preparatory movement (i.e. you are just preparing for ‘the inevitable fall of the empire’), why so clandestine?  there is nothing illegal or wrong with forming an organization that considers itself a support group of some sort in the event of an emergency situation.
  • due to the fact that i found a letter on my windshield in the parking lot this a.m. (try a plastic bag next time it froze to the glass) am i not being reasonable in thinking that this may just be a very, very localized thing?
  • i assume your folk only see what i write by going through other sites?  my blog is not exactly well read so i must assume that when i notice all past views have come from sites that i have posted the link on that you could very well be messing with me
  • are you related to the State of Jefferson movement of pre-WW2 fame?

so to keep my promise (for now), i will post verbatim what your letter said this morning.

this is reproduced verbatim so as to not offend:

‘you will receive a correspondence from time to time and we would appreciate if you would copy it to your site in a complete manner.  if you deem any info unsettling we understand if you censor said info, but we may repeat it in the next correspondence if we deem necessary.

we are not linking you to us in the slightest bit except for the fact that you are a voluntary outlet

we are not revolutionaries, but prefer to call ourselves eventualists, who see that what we are doing is purely preparatory.  we are convinced that the proverbial shit will hit the fan at some point within the next ten years and want to be able to help the citizens of our five present states pick up the pieces and form a new republic

we believe the founding fathers of the American experiment were an important part of human societal evolution and the majority of their intentions and constructs need to be preserved within a republic founded on the principles they set forth.  modified only in the sense that societies change but philosophical intent must be embraced and protected.

there are various academics who have been involved in our movement since the financial collapse started, and even though it is purely a hypothetical exercise, they have begun a civilization-like gaming experiment, setting forth ideas on republican governance and constitutional building scenario based on the original founding documents

we chose our potential footprint for the republic (the present states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), for geographic, ideological, and strategic reasons that we will explain if this correspondence evolves

we will elaborate if you are interested in being a conduit.  if you post this we will assume consent

we are the Republic of Jefferson.’


3 thoughts on “thursday letter

  1. Sounds to me like they feel America is falling and they are not going to help stop the domestic enemies within the three branches of our government. Might be because they do not really understand the US Constitution or what a “domestic enemy” is.
    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights”.
    Our founding fathers believed that those Rights in the US Constitution (and others) are our natural Rights, and that OUR Constitution was created to create the way our government will operate and to Protect our Rights from those who serve in our government who would take them away?
    Most Americans believe that the Constitution gives us certain rights. When actually the Bill of Rights sets limits on our federal government, making it clear that it has no power to take away or weaken the rights we already naturally possess; or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.
    The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges our federal government may not in any way weaken or take them away. It also puts them, protections of life liberty and property, into code (rights each of us naturally possess) and plus includes specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.
    Finally, the Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
    The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants our federal government prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The Ninth Amendment backs up this truth by saying they cannot ever deny, or weaken the Peoples written guaranteed Rights. The federal government also may not exercise any powers not granted it by the US Constitution (yet they have been doing exactly that). Plus it makes clear that the few rights specifically highlighted in the Bill of Rights do not count as an all-inclusive list. Our federal government cannot exercise ANY powers other than those granted by the US Constitution.
    Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people.
    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. Tenth Amendment
    “It is the proper object of a written constitution no only to restrain the several branches of the government, viz. the legislative, executive and judiciary departments, within their proper limits, respectively, but to prohibit the branches, united, from any attempt to invade that portion of the sovereign power which the people have not delegated to their public functionaries and agents, but have reserved, unalienably, to themselves. ” St. George Tucker, early American constitutional scholar and legal professor.
    example: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment:
    1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
    2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest. There have been numerous cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
    Again, this amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers. Michael LeMieux

    Then there is that “pesky” Oath they are all required to take. The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity to get into the Office or Position they want.
    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
    The wording of the Presidential Oath was already established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10 (I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States). The requirement for all other Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of Impeachment and Censure.
    The Supreme Court of the United States – “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
    This says that there is NEVER a reason for any of the Peoples Rights to be denied them/taken away/changed unless a domestic enemy is in our government attacking us. Right now we have them in all three branches.
    POTUS Obama stated “the Constitution is a document of negative liberties.”
    How is he looking at the Constitution in order to have that opinion?
    The Bill of Rights is not a list of negative liberties to each of us, but a list of written restrictions upon the federal government. The Bill of Rights do not restrict US citizens, they limit what the politicians and bureaucrats can do to or against us.
    In order to view the Bill of Rights as “negative liberties”, Obama and his administration would have to be seeing them from how they stop what they can do to the people.

    See what I mean? This government has gone way beyond what it is allowed to do under our Constitution making those currently occupying those positions in it domestic enemies.

    • Sorry, I left some errors in that : Our founding fathers believed that those Rights in the US Constitution (and others) are our natural Rights, and that OUR Constitution was created to put in writing the way our government will operate, and to Protect our Rights from those who serve in our government who would take them away! (Question mark was to be exclamation,, not suppose to be 2 create/created, etc. I am so sorry)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s