The Federal government surrounds the States; it is the borders of the States and its charter is to protect them from invasion (The outside world), and from each other (Trade wars, tariffs etc). When reading the constitution for “the United States” keep in mind which object of government “the United States” represents.

The constitution for “the United States” talks about three main objects: “the United States”, “the States”, and “the People”.  Let’s take a look at a few phrases in the constitution and put the original intent into perspective.

“The Senate of [the United States] shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” It is clear in this sentence “the United States” refers to what we call the Federal government; it is not talking about “the Senate of [the States]”, each State already has a State Senate.

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of [the United States].” Again, it is clear they are paid from the Federal treasury, not from the State treasury, and not directly from your personal treasury.

“The Congress shall have Power to borrow Money on the credit of [the United States].” Does this give them the authority to borrow money on your credit? Does it give them the power to borrow money on the credit of the States? Nay, it gives them the power to borrow money on the credit of [the United States]; AKA the Federal government.

So it becomes obvious the phrase “the United States” is specifically talking about the Federal government, not the contents thereof. Like the egg carton, “the United States” is the container, not the contents. Like any legal document you cannot change the meaning of an object in one part of the document without changing it in all places.

Take for example the following and remember the egg carton analogy. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of [the United States]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout [the United States]”

The power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of whom? That’s right, the Federal government. Go ahead on your own and try to replace the meaning of “the United States” with anything else and see how distorted the Constitution for “the United States” becomes. You will find that in the effort of twisting the meaning of the general Welfare of “the United States” to include “the people” you also grant “the people” the power of the supremacy clause; that would mean that I could make a law and it would be the supreme law of the land as long as it was in pursuit of a power delegated to “the United States” by the constitution.

The difference between the two political parties have become two flavors of the same ideology with the goal of getting us to fight over social issues where either way we lose freedom and they consolidate more power in Washington D.C.

With the election laws being such that third parties are a fool’s errand, the battle lines between freedom and federal dominion have become subdivisions within the political parties and across party lines where we can no longer distinguish ideology by party label but instead we must know our friends entirely by their actions.

I recently wrote an article called taking our country back from who? That puts to words the feeling that is sweeping this country and clearly defines the ideological battle lines of this new political landscape. A recent article from the Oakland press in support of the Federal dominion party illustrates this battle and the misinformation being pushed.

Take a closer look at some of the propaganda:

“We are the United States of America,” said Schweitzer. “This talk of nullifying is pretty toxic talk. That led to the Civil War.”

This is a threat; Schweitzer clearly showed his allegiance to Federal ownership of our personal sovereignty and tells us that if we try to stand up to the Federal government takeover there will be war.

Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply “kooky,” such as a plan to make it legal to hunt big game with a spear.

This is where they start the attempt to tie our fight for personal sovereignty to extreme silliness; really, one could ask the same question in reverse, why is there a law prohibiting this? Next the author of the article ties in his own opinion stating:

Supporters are not dissuaded by the legal scholars who say the notion runs afoul of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law “the supreme law of the land.”

Notice that Matt Gouras of the Associated Press does not mention the counter point to this argument he makes, for one has only to read the entire sentence to debunk Matt’s argument from “legal scholars”. The supremacy clause clearly states that Federal law is only supreme when in pursuit of powers delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution for the United States.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

“You are scaring the you-know-what out of them with this kind of talk,” veteran Republican lawmaker Walt McNutt said. “This needs to stop and stop now. Stop scaring our constituents and stop letting us look like a bunch of buffoons.”

Who is scaring whom? It’s obvious this republican Walt McNutt does not understand what is happening and the very idea of standing up to the Federal takeover of our personal sovereignty is making him soil himself. It’s people like Schweitzer trying to intimidate others with talk of civil war if we dare stand up to the Federal government and enforce the Constitution for the United States.

Then for the finishing point to drive the whole theme of the article home Matt brings out the clowns and tries to paint anyone who would stand for freedom and liberty as a clown using the wackiness of the Montana governor and some retired university president.

 “It would be hard for anyone to top what is going on here in terms of the insanity of it all,” said Lawrence Pettit, a retired university president and author living in Helena. “One could be amused by it, except it is too dangerous.”

Schweitzer, meanwhile, is getting ready for the bills that may arrive on his desk. On Wednesday, he got a new cattle brand from the state livestock agency that reads “VETO.” A branding iron is being made.

“Ain’t nobody in the history of Montana has had so many danged ornery critters that needed branding,” he said.

The idea that people defending liberty are “danged ornery critters that needed branding” is offensive, and the Governor of Montana wanting to brand ordinary citizens who simply want to control their own lives with a “VETO” iron might be amusing to some, but it’s clear that Schweitzer is the clown; and the imagery of being branded “VETO” by wanting to control your own life strikes so close to home that it only throws fuel on the fire for personal sovereignty, and stokes the fire of revolution that is burning across this land!

In a recent town hall meeting a lady was explaining to me that if we as a State simply participated in more Federal programs we would get more Federal money and be like those States who get back 2 and 3 dollars for every dollar we sent to Washington D.C. instead of the 85 cents on the dollar that we get back now.

Unfortunately a portion of those Federal programs must be paid for by the State budget, and in the process we must make State laws that comply with the requirements to participate in those programs; the Federal government can change the rules any time they like and we are forced to comply or leave the program. The Federal government has been known on occasions to create programs that get the people hooked on a social service just to remove Federal funding later and leave the State holding the bag or explaining to the citizens why we have to cut the program; in other cases they leverage existing grants to demand we participate in unrelated programs and spend our own money doing so.

While the State budget his hemorrhaging, and taxes are at the breaking point one only has to step back and look at the big picture to see what is happening. The Federal government takes nearly twice as much in taxes under the 16^th amendment from the citizens of New Hampshire as the State; every Federal incentive is for the State to spend more money to qualify for more grants, and thus become more dependent on Federal control and write more State laws to satisfy Federal demands.

Because the immense tax burden of our Federal 16^th amendment taxes; the States cannot raise taxes any more, the people will not tolerate it. Therefore, the Federal government has created a glass ceiling for State revenue while they enjoy the luxury of printing an endless supply of money for themselves waiting for the States to break. As pointed out by Daniel Webster “An unlimited power to tax includes, necessarily, the power to destroy.” And that is what we are witnessing today.

Now there is talk of States that need to go bankrupt; and the Federal government bailing them out just like they did General Motors as pointed out in this article from the New York Times; this is a direct financial assault on the Sovereignty of the States, as the States cannot declare bankruptcy because they are sovereign; but hey, our buddy the Federal government is looking into ways to fix that problem. Perhaps they will fire our Governor like the did the GM CEO, and replace our Legislative branch with the Presidents buddies.

Is it intentional or accidental? This does not matter; the effect is the same. This is why in the founding of our country the Federal government was not given the power to tax the citizens of the States; they knew better, and this is why we must call for the repeal of the 16^th amendment along with a transfer of control of all Federal domestic programs to the States. Grandma doesn’t have to eat dog food, and the people dependent on social services continue to receive benefits but now we cut out the middle man and regain control of our own Sovereignty and the Federal government gets back to its real job – Foreign affairs.

A recent article in the Concord monitor talks about this issue on the surface; failing to cover the big picture for people who don’t understand what is going on, drop them a comment if so inclined.

“in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property”

“There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President”

Now I always thought of a partnership as something that is mutual and goes both ways; but consider that this partnership exists with only 10 of the 50 Governors; what about the other 40? And as you will see at the end it is a one-way partnership with the Federal government Executive branch at the helm.

“(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

The purpose of this council is to share information and coordinate military activities. I don’t know about you but I think the other 40 States should be concerned!

“The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with (Insert long list of Federal agencies)”

 “(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”

I have downloaded a copy of this executive order to the TAC website incase the White House link goes missing: 2010executive_order

AN ACT making the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.

1 New Subparagraph; Sexual Assault; Touching or Viewing by Government Security Agent. Amend RSA 632-A:4, I by inserting after subparagraph (c) the following new subparagraph:

(d) When the person, acting in his or her role as a security agent of the federal, state, or local government, touches the genitals or breasts of any other person or touches or views with any technological device the genitals or breasts of any other person without probable cause for such touching or viewing. For purposes of this subparagraph, the following shall not constitute probable cause: discussing or possessing a copy of the Constitution, discussing the security apparatus of an airport, being on the premises of an airport, possessing an airplane ticket or any other type of ticket for access to mass transportation, driving a motor vehicle on a public way, or ownership of firearms.

Full text of HB0628

HCR19, this years sovereignty bill passes through the House from the State and Federal Committee 228 – 108. Now it is off to the Committee for Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification.

We, the voters of New Hampshire made excellent choices this last election; our call for reinforcements in the battle to restrain the Federal government has been heard by the State House!

Here is my written Testimony to the General Court CACR4 and the video of my testimony before the New Hampshire State Federal Relations and Veteran Affairs committee. The sponsor of the bill Al Baldasaro kicks off the testimony for the first 3 minutes and 40 seconds, and I finish the remainder.

In Liberty,

Dan Kanna

Looks like the New House is fighting back against Federal Tyranny, this is good news for the other State Sovereignty bills that follow!

Cheers!

Article 7 of the New Hampshire bill of rights says the Federal government only has powers “expressly delegated”; and as article 7 pre-dates the Constitution for the United States it was clearly understood at the time of the signing of the compact between the States.

Whereas the power delegated to the United States with concern to commerce reads “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” and a 1942 Supreme Court ruling changed the meaning of commerce to include “anything that affects commerce”.

The plain text of the commerce clause in the Constitution for the United States does not read “To regulate anything that affects commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

The 1942 change to the commerce clause was not authorized under article V of the Constitution for the United States; therefore any Federal law or regulation of commerce that originates in New Hampshire and never leaves the State of New Hampshire is not in pursuance of enumerated powers explicitly granted to the Federal government and therefore not the supreme law of the land.

 Under the powers retained by the States in the 10^th amendment to the constitution for the United States HB 324 is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional laws and regulations created by the Federal government; and whereas the Federal government has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease and desist in this extra-constitutional adventure for 69 years penalties for this behavior must be set.

I urge you to vote yes on HB 324 and take this needed step to restoring constitutional order to our great republic.

In Liberty,

Dan Kanna

Amherst, NH

 “Whereas, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled”

Full text of the bill here; A RESOLUTION affirming States’ powers based on the Constitution for the United States and the Constitution of New Hampshire.

The public hearing is scheduled for the committee on STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS on 2/10/2011 at 2:00 PM in LOB 203.