Bill of Rights


When the founding fathers began their work on the Constitution, some of them needed further clarification of all of the ‘inalienable’ rights.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution that outlines the inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual were codified.

The founders understood that government is just ultimate power, and that the inalienable rights, property and freedoms of the INDIVIDUAL were transcendent over the power of the state.

They realized that some, through greed and lust for power would attempt to utilize government dominance to further their personal gain.

The Constitution was that blueprint of checks and balances to prevent any arm of the government, its agencies, laws, mandates or orders could infringe on the rights and freedoms of ANY INDIVIDUAL.

The intent was to guarantee that no individual, group of individuals, law, agency, corporation or government itself could infringe on the inalienable rights, property and freedoms of any INDIVIDUAL.

The intent of any laws enacted by government is to enforce and/or enhance this standard.

This Constitution although legally in force today, has been supplanted by the Act of 1871 that provided a government for the District of Columbia and create a Corporate structure relegating the sovereign individual to the status of a serf to the Corporate State.

It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on wealth and property of the American sovereigns (people).

2 Comments to “Bill of Rights”

  1. It’s unfortunate that Romney is in the lead because it has been said that he looks presidential. It made me sick to hear this when the debates first started up. If how a person carries themself is what influences people, hey, Santorum has nice teeth. Hunstsman started out very intelligent, yet even then he was at the bottom. I hope Paul survives it all, but I beleive what others have said here that voter fraud would take place if he won.

  2. Ya learn, while I don’t necessarily go along with all of Paul’s plans, I gotta respect him for standing up for what he considers in. I think it’s fairly clear which Republican warrants the “maverick” name.

Leave a Reply