Mike Tuggle Has Thrown Down The Gauntlet
WARNING: The following information has been banned from LOS meetings and is NOT allowed to be debated.
It appears that Mike Tuggle has thrown down the gauntlet. In his recent comparison of "similar logic" between myself and Mr. Morris Dees he feels that I am "Unable to argue law, history or the Constitution with the League… ." I accept Mr. Tuggle’s offer to a debate between him and myself . We could hold it as a post flag rally event. I agree with Mr. Tuggle that cowards do resort to "personal attacks" when they cannot argue law, history or the Constitution when they wish to discredit others.
Needless to say, I have long ceased finding Mike Tuggle’s personal attacks and tabloid journalism to be cute or entertaining. His "bashings" of me have been totally unprovoked. To this date I have never written any response to the numerous misstatements attributed to myself by Mr. Tuggle. I have felt that the Southern movement should not cannibalize itself. Our foes are too large and thrive off of our self-imposed divisions. I expressed this to Dr. Hill in Florida and he thanked me for not running this subject through the mud with media and internet volleys and counter volleys.
I will not fall prey to Tuggle’s "provocation." I will not attack him personally. I will however deal with the facts as they relate to his statements.
It is truly sad that this has to come out. It was not my desire.
Mr. Tuggle claims that I made "unfair attacks" on two of the Leagues religious leaders. Let me briefly explain what I can do with facts. I have the ability to use true selected facts that will convince you that the "Civil War" was fought by the federal government for the purpose to free slaves, to preserve the Union or to preserve "states rights." At the same time I have the ability to prove beyond doubt by the use of selected facts that the war was fought by the federal government to preserve the institution of slavery, destroy the Union and destroy "states rights." Facts don’t lie, - conclusions do. People can manipulate selected facts to create any conclusion that they so choose.
Obviously I feel that selective factual statements have been misused in order to draw false, misleading and slanderous conclusions about myself and re-establishment of lawful government.
Before I can present rebuttals to the numerous items needing to be addressed, I must lay a foundation of what exactly Re-establishment is and what principals constitute its foundation.
Mike Tuggle permanently banned this information from being presented at North Carolina League of the South Meetings in September 2000. LoS members should proceed with caution. The following information could lead to the hypnotised sharing of fantasies and cause disillusionment with the LoS.
Re-establishment is Un-reconstruction. Period. Un-reconstruction does not mean that we do not learn from the mistakes of the past and absolutely return to everything that was practiced in the past.
Un-reconstruction is based off of the principal that the reconstruction Acts of 1867 along with their subsequent Acts, the 14th Amendment and the Acts that brought "new states" into the Union are all unconstitutional therefore creating an unconstitutional Federal Union not based upon the consent of the governed. In other words it was the overthrow of free government in America.
What do the Federal Courts say about an unconstitutional Act;
- an unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority. Norton v. Shelby County, 6 Supreme Court. 1121. An "unconstitutional act" constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it, and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. A legislative act in conflict with the Constitution is not only illegal or voidable, but absolutely void. It is as if never enacted, and no subsequent change of the Constitution removing the restriction could validate it or breathe into it the breath of life. In re Rahrer, 43 F. 556, 558, 10 L.R.A.444
.
Please note the words ." It imposes no duties. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation … as though it had never been passed" and " It is as if never enacted, "
A few statements from James G. Blaine Republican Representative, Maine 1861-1881 concerning the 14th Amendment, called the Reconstruction Amendment. He was a Representative in Congress during the war and during the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Please note that he is in favor of reconstruction;
"The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights,.."
"Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship."
"The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty."
Robert Lewis Dabney’s commentary on Davis’ "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," which appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review in April of 1882 states the following;
"Mr. Davis also argues, that the pretended legislations of the Washington government, in organizing spurious (not genuine, counterfeit) State governments, contrary to the Constitution, within the territories of Confederate States and without their consent,… were all illegal and void."
Dabney is talking about the government that we live under today. They are illegal and they are void. Remember these statements are being made in 1882, 14 years after the creation of the States that are still in power.
Dabney goes on about these newly "created States";
"They rest, to this day, on no better basis than the right of conquest. But this is a ground which cannot be righteous or valid for a power which solemnly declares that ‘all just government rests upon the consent of the governed.’"
"He concludes finally, that the real overthrow, which the Northern people, in their lust of aggrandizement and fury, inflicted by force of arms, was not only of the Confederacy, but of the whole liberties of themselves and their children."
"That the equitable, Constitutional, and federal government created by the Fathers, has been annihilated, and is replaced by a consolidated democracy, which, under the name of a ‘Republic,’ is in fact a virtual oligarchy of demagogues and capitalists."
"He (Jefferson Davis) shows that the so-called ‘reconstruction measures’ were the crowning and most violent usurpations of all. For the Washington government had declared all along, that there was no way under heaven by which a State could cease to be a member of the Union; that the States called Confederate had been in and under the Union during the whole time of their attempted secession, and at and after the end of the war."
"But these State governments, declared indestructible, were annihilated by the United States Congress two years after (the ending of hostilities), without any crime or offense of the States, or of a single person in them….While there was not a hand lifted against the United States, while the conquered population were submissively obeying all laws, even the illegal laws, the States were thrust out of the Union, every magistrate and citizen in them was disfranchised without trial or even indictment; and all were stripped of the inalienable rights of trial by jury and habeas corpus, and thrust under a bayonet government."
"No invasion of human right, as monstrous and sweeping as these, over so many millions of human beings, has ever before been perpetrated in time of peace, by any usurper, military emperor, or arbitrary conqueror."
"This crime, committed by a democracy, under universal suffrage, proves that this government of a popular majority, now dominant in place of the Constitution and the States, and is capable of just as enormous outrages as any other despot,…"
"Of course, every clear mind sees, that if those views of President Davis are just, the current boasts as to the results of the war are precisely the reverse of truth. ‘That the war has, forever settled the question of unity, etc.’ Rather the war has forever unsettled the unity of the country, as well as every other institution."
"For, just as soon as any section feels again the pressure of a grievance and thinks of any power to escape it, that section will of course pronounce – what everybody knows to be true in fact – that the war of 1861-5, substituted a government of brute force for one of right and popular consent; that force, as everybody but robbers confesses, settles no question of morals, and grounds no claim of right; and that the domination of the Washington government has therefore always been illegal and invalid ever since the fraudulent ‘reconstruction;’ which any section has a right to reject it, whenever strong enough to do so."
Jeff Davis stated ; "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
The true object of reconstruction has been unreported. The lost and unnoticed effect of reconstruction was the forced removal of the requirement to be a Christian in order to hold public office. How this went by totally unnoticed is a mystery to me. For those who do not understand when we went from a Christian government to a non-Christian government, here it is. It did not happen when they took prayer out of school.
The gravity of the removal of Christians from the positions of law makers should be obvious to everyone today. Law can only be humanistic or Biblical. Humanistic law is where man is the unrestrained law maker. Under this form of law no rights are ever safe since they are only rights when those in power say they are rights. Laws are subject to change depending upon popular sentiment or perceived popular sentiment. In a Government where Christians are the law makers they are bound by the Supreme lawgiver to guarantee the unchangeable laws and rights granted to mankind by Him. Rights become permanent and stable.
Needless to say, we did not re-establish/ un-reconstruct North-Carolina solely based upon the statements of Dabney, and Davis. There is not space to fully detail all of the evidence.
When you have unconstitutional acts that purportedly (1) changes the fundamental truth that the one true God is the creator of law to the principal that the men in office are the source and origin of law, (2) overturn the origin and character of American Citizenship, (3) create "new" states, (4) overturn the principles of free government and (5) annul States in the American Union - it is as if those acts had NEVER been passed.
Both the Reconstruction Acts and the 14th Amendment are clearly and unquestionably unconstitutional. The offices and governments that are created by them do not exist in law. They only exist because people are willing to recognize them as legitimate. I choose to exercise my right not to recognize them as legitimate.
The facts are as follows;
- The 39th Congress of the United States passed Acts currently being enforced that unlawfully and without authority annulled the North-Carolina Constitution of Dec. 18, 1776
- Unconstitutional acts have no force in law
- Unconstitutional acts create no office
- Unconstitutional acts impose no duty to obey them-there is no legal obligation to obey unconstitutional actions
- The Reconstruction Acts are based upon the principal of conquest
- Conquest is based upon war
- Waging war or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of any one of the several states is a violation of Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution and constitutes treason.
- The propping up of government by force of arms against the free will of the rightful inhabitants is war
- The Governor of North Carolina, Jonathan Worth surrendered the government and Constitution of North Carolina to W.W. Holden who was placed as the new Governor by Military Order # 120 dated July 1, 1868 as follows in its entirety;
State of North Carolina
Executive Department
Raleigh July 1st 1868
Gov. W. W. Holden
Raleigh, N.C.
Sir,
Yesterday morning I was verbally notified by Chief Justice Pearson that in obedience to a telegram from Genl Canby, he would today at 10 A.M. administer to you the oaths required preliminary to your entering upon the discharge of the duties of Civil Governor of the State; and that there upon you would demand possession of my Office.
I intimated to the Judge my opinion that such proceeding was premature even under the Reconstruction legislation of Congress and that I should probably decline to surrender the Office to you.
At sundown yesterday evening I received from Col. Williams, Commandant of this Military Post an extract from the General Orders No. 120. - of Genl Canby as follows
Head Quarters 2nd Military Dist.
Charleston, S. C. 3Oit 68
General Orders]
No 120 (Extract)
To facilitate the organization of the new State Government, the following appointments are made. To be Governor of North Carolina, W. W. Holden, Governor elect, viz. Jonathan Worth, removed. To be Lieut Governor elect of North Carolina, Tod R. Caldwell, Lieut Governor elect to fill our original vacancy. To take effect July 1st 1868. on the meeting of the General Assembly of North Carolina.
I do not recognize the validity of the late election, under which you and those cooperating with you claim to be invested with the Civil Government of the State. You have no evidence of your election, save the certificate of a Major General of the United States Army. I regard all of you as, in effect, appointees of the Military power of the United States, and not as "deriving your powers from the consent of those you claim to govern. Knowing, however, that you are backed by Military force here, which I could not resist if I would, I do not deem it necessary to offer a futile opposition but vacate the office without the ceremony of actual eviction, offering no further opposition than this, my protest. I would submit to actual expulsion in order to bring before the Supreme Court of the United States the question as to the Constitutionality of the legislation under which you claim to be the rightful Governor of the State, if the past action of that tribunal furnished any hope of a speedy trial. I surrender the office to you under what I deem Military duress, without stopping as the occasion would well justify. To comment upon the singular coincidence that the present State Government is surrendered, as without legality, to him whose own official sanction, but three years ago, declared it valid.
I am, very Respectfully,
Jonathan Worth,
Governor of N.C.
- W.W. Holden and every governor since that time have been usurpers of office.
The definitions to usurper and usurper of office from Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed. are;
Usurper. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Usurper of a public office One who either intrudes into a vacant office or ousts the incumbent without any color of title. One who intrudes on office and assumes to exercise its functions without legal title or color of right thereto.
President Andrew Johnson in his veto of the supplemental Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867 stated;
"Another ground on which these reconstruction acts are attempted to be sustained is this: That these ten States are conquered territory; that the constitutional relation in which they stood as States toward the Federal Government prior to the rebellion has given place to a new relation; that their territory is a conquered country and their citizens a conquered people, and that in this new relation Congress can govern them by military power."
"A title by conquest stands on clear ground; it is a new title acquired by war."
Crimes of the Civil War by Judge Henry Clay Dean available through Crown Rights Book Company states;
"Conquest is armed robbery; government by conquest is usurpation."
"… usurpation strikes down the law."
"Resistance to usurpation is just. The usurper has no claims to the protection of law, because his powers are derived from the suspension of law. He holds his power by force, …."
"For resistance to law, every government has ample power to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy."
It must be stated that the so-called "States" created by reconstruction do not get their authority to exist from law. It’s just the opposite. They get their authority to exist from the suspension of law. When law is established as the foundation of government, usurpation cannot exist.
In America’s Caesar by G. L. Durand, in the chapter titled The need to re-establish lawful government he quotes the United States Supreme Court;
The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may change the form of government and the laws at his pleasure, and may exercise every attribute of sovereignty. The conquered territory becomes a part of the domain of the conqueror, subject to the right of the nation to which it belonged to recapture if it can. By reason of this right to recapture, the title of the conqueror is not perfect until confirmed by treaty of peace…" Fleming v. Page
If any one is aware of a treaty of peace between North Carolina and the Federal Government please let me know as soon as possible. Without it their "conquest" is not perfected and remains a usurpation to this day and the right to recapture remains a right.
It is inconsistent to say that Reconstruction was unconstitutional yet legitimate. Only someone totally unfamiliar with constitutional law would state such a thing. Many people in the Southern movement add at the bottom of their addresses either ‘Federal occupation zone’ or ‘Yankee occupation zone.’ This stresses the point that we all know the true nature of our over 135 year hostile occupation. I do not understand the concept of "legally working within the system" when the "system" is illegal. It is kind of like legally working within the Mafia or legally stealing people’s money. It is a true oxymoron.
It would be different if Mike Tuggle made the statement that the best choice that he felt that he had was working within the system. His scorched earth policy to actively discredit and destroy other methods and ideas is troubling.
I have no idea how anyone in the Southern movement could believe that re-establishing un-reconstructed government is fantasy. To the contrary, I don’t see how anyone who has even an elementary understanding of reconstruction could believe that the current de facto governments are anything but coerced perversions claiming to be legitimate.
Allow me to define de facto and de jure from Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed;
De facto government
One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
Government de jure
A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy and the administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which, nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say, which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
By these definitions we see that the de jure government does not receive habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. It is not required to have a majority to have lawful government. In fact it would go against its’ definition if it were a majority of the community. You merely need to have people who are willing to stand up and exercise their right to have lawful legitimate de jure government. This is what we did in North-Carolina in December of 1997.
There is a difference between rights and privileges. Knowing in law that the exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime, I must decide if I have a right to lawful government. Some people believe that the way to get our rights back is to elect the right people into office in the hope that they will pass laws giving back what was unlawfully taken from us. This operates under the principal that our rights are to be asked for, begged for, or at the very least, exercised at someone else’s discretion. The name of what you receive from government in this example would not be properly titled a "right." It is a privilege. It is something that is not guaranteed and which cannot be freely exercised without thought to government regulation, intervention or punishment.
Americans have become so accustomed to the loss of their rights that they somehow feel that they can "demand" them back from government. This is another legal absurdity. A right is a right is a right. If you find yourself demanding rights it is a sure sign that you are subjugated by something that does not recognize your rights.
In order to unreconstruct a state, we must decide if unreconstruction is a right or a privilege. If it is a privilege to have lawful government, then the method to secure that privilege would be to have an "out-in-the-open effort to create a mass political movement and run candidates for public office." With this method we can project into the future and hope to secure a "right" sometime after the next election. That is if we have a majority in the Legislature. If we do not have a majority in the Legislature then we have to look forward to the next election. If a majority is not reached then we can look at our positive strides in making inroads, rally the troops and "look forward to the next election." In regards to unreconstruction, an optimist would say that it will take 80-100 years to attain your "rights."
People with this view are content to leave the fight for freedom as an inheritance for their children and grandchildren Maybe collaboration with the occupiers has so many benefits that these people wouldn’t want to ruffle any feathers. They might get into trouble. They may even – heaven forbid – receive a traffic ticket!
At what point does a political movement designed to take 80-100 years cease being a political movement for change and become a stalling tactic designed to keep enthusiastic people uninformed and busy allowing the enemy to grow stronger and become better prepared?
In the Words of Patrick Henry in his famed "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech he stated;
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. "
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house! Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
"This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
I wish to extract two points out of this excerpt. (1) We need to have "freedom of debate" on the issues before us concerning unreconstructing – not biased, one sided, slanderous trashing of those that you disagree with, and (2) We must stop "indulg(ing) in the illusions of hope." Anyone familiar with the changing demographics of our nation are familiar with the projections that at the current rate the posterity of our founders will be a minority in less than 50 years as a result of our new open borders. How do you say "Southern Independence by all honorable means" in Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, German, etc..
If we choose to unreconstruct and free our States as a right, we must stop asking others to do it for us. If it truly is our government, and we have a right to it, then we organize however many people who want to exercise that right and just do it.
We look to Gideon to decide who the fighters of this "battle" will be. When the Israelites became extremely impoverished and oppressed and occupied by foreign foes, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern people, they cried out to the Lord. Once we understand the futility of believing that we, as humans, have enough strength and savvy to put down our present day oppressors we will turn to the only true answer, the Lord God. If we believe that true freedom comes from numbers and resources, we are destined for continued slavery. An optimist would probably say at least 80-100 more years of oppression.
How was Gideon’s Army chosen? Was it by recruiting the largest number of people possible? The answer is no, just the opposite. First of all Gideon did everything that the Lord told him to do. He was to tear down the alter to Baal and build an alter to the Lord. We in the re-establishment movement wish to tear down the unconstitutional Constitution that removed Christianity from our land and restore God as the Supreme Law giver and not usurpers.
Gideon started with an Army of 32,000 and were still overwhelmingly outnumbered. God ordered Gideon to send away all who trembled in fear at this seemingly overwhelming situation. 22,000 left. We in the re-establishment movement are not fearful of "arrest records" and we say to those who are, "please stay home this is not for you."
Mike Tuggle is right that the numbers involved in re-establishment of lawful Christian government are not even up to the level of miniscule compared to those of the usurpers. But we have a greater God then the humanists do. He is our only weapon. Jesus Christ is the Truth. All we need is the Truth on our side – numbers are quite irrelevant.
When we go into battle with the usurpers, we may find that we will have to reduce our already miniscule numbers even farther. The War is not about numbers it is about Truth. We will never win with numbers. We are assured of winning with Truth.
We in the re-establishment/unreconstruction movement believe that it is wrong to take the stand that "if you can’t beat the usurpers, then you join them." When you have a criminal unlawful government I do not understand how you can re-establish lawful government by encouraging everyone to register and participate with the known usurpers. The strategy of making your oppressors larger in order to weaken him does not make sense to me. Why encourage people to participate in the evil works of darkness? They should be encouraged to turn their backs on usurpers and get focused on the right, just and true direction. Boycotting the usurpers should be the minimum we can do, not collaboration with them. But unlike the civil rights protestors of the 60’s did in the bus boycott, don’t go back when they dangle lures in your face that will prolong your subjugation.
I also agree with Mike that there are two types of power. Real power and make-believe power. Real power is found in God, truth, wisdom and justice. All truth, wisdom and justice originate in the fear of the Lord. God is the giver of authority. He is not the author of usurpation of His own Laws. Usurpation is not authorized as just, and God abhors injustice. He does allow injustice and usurpation, and allows us to cast off such injustice when we decide that His laws are what we truly seek once again. Usurpation of God’s Laws are unjust. Most people are "hypnotized" into believing that usurped power is real power. Power derived from unjust usurpation is truly make-believe and I want nothing to do with it.
Now we have a basis for correction of the misstatements in the Journal.
Rev. Wilkins was a great disappointment to me for two reasons that I can mention here, (1) When Dr. Hill asked him to contact Chris McCall Charlotte Chapter President of LOS concerning allegations made by Mike Tuggle concerning me, Rev. Wilkins made no attempt to find the truth. His investigation consisted only of instructing Chris to stay away from me, (2) he refused to allow me to present my position to him. He was in a position of voting on whether to revoke my position as vice president of the Charlotte Chapter of LOS and my membership. He chose to vote against me while refusing to hear my rebuttal to Mike Tuggle’s claims.
Proverbs 18:17 states, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."
My feelings toward Rev. Wilkins were not created by his not agreeing with me. He has no option to agree with something that he has no first hand knowledge. My feelings came from the fact that he pronounced me guilty without first hearing my side – "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." – Proverbs 18:13. I expressly told him that I would make myself available to answer any questions that he may have about the situation. He chose to not contact me, not ask questions and yet give advice to others to stay away from me. For this reason I lost a tremendous amount of respect for the Reverend.
Rev. Wilkins also stated that the reconstruction Acts were acquiesced to by the citizenry of the time, therefore making the reconstruction governments both permanent and legitimate. I disagreed with Rev. Wilkins at the time and I still disagree with him on this point.
My wife even stated to Rev. Wilkins that we were willing to accept any information that he could provide that would prove our stand wrong. Rev. Wilkins and Mike Tuggle have never produced any evidence that an unconstitutional Act becomes valid after a certain period of time. The wording of the law is that it is NEVER valid.
The statement that I came to the October meeting "unannounced" appears to be stated in a negative context. It is my belief that most everyone goes to meetings "unannounced." The fact is that I was invited as the guest of 2 of the previous Chapter President of LOS. They both felt that Mike Tuggle would bring up accusations concerning me and that it would be Biblical for me to be there to confront my accuser.
I do believe that the existing political system is wrong. When I went to the October meeting "unannounced" I carried with me a copy of a proposed declaration from John Cripps web site freemississippi.org. I agree with the declaration and felt that it could lead to confusion among LOS members since this position was what precipitated my removal from LOS.
The site contains the following;
For several years now, I have been researching the legal effects of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 upon the several States of the South and have begun to arrive at a very disturbing conclusion: the lawful States, both of the South and the North, have not existed for the past 130 years and those claiming to hold office in those State governments are usurpers of public office…by G. L. Durand
A Suggested Declaration of Independence
For the People of Mississippi (edited)
Whereas, These same free White male inhabitants of the Territory of Mississippi, in their sovereign political capacity, framed the Mississippi constitution of 1817 and thereby became Citizens of the State of Mississippi; and
Whereas, The government and constitution of the State of Mississippi was unlawfully taken by military force from her Citizens in the summer of 1865 when the troops of the Executive branch of the purported United States Government invaded her soil, arrested her Governor, Charles Clark, and forced the State legislature to adjourn under threat, duress, and coercion; and
Whereas, An agent of the invading military power by the name of General Benjamin G. Humphreys unlawfully assumed the office of Governor of the State of Mississippi in October of 1865, where he remained until he was removed by his principal in 1868; and
Whereas, Under the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts of Congress of 1867, the State of Mississippi was placed into the purported Fourth Military District and subjected to martial law in violation of the customs and usages of the people, the law of nations, and the Constitution for the United States of America,(3) by which Congress is bound to guarantee a republican form of government(4) to each State; and
Whereas, an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed, and therefore gives no validity to the acts of any person acting under color of its authority;(5) and
Whereas, Delegates selected by the registered foreign residents within the boundaries of the lawful State of Mississippi purportedly framed a new constitution in 1869, excluding Mississippi Citizens from the right of suffrage in the purported government thus established;
Whereas, A lawful constitution can only be terminated by the sovereign authority by which it was framed and ratified;
Now Therefore, The constitution of the State of Mississippi of 1832 remains in full force and shall forever so remain until it is abolished by the free White male posterity of the people who framed it. All purported legislation and all purported jurisdictional claims of the agents of the purported State of Mississippi are hereby declared to be a nullity with no force or substance in law and with no claim to the allegiance of the Christian people of Mississippi; and
Resolved, We the posterity of the free White inhabitants of the Territory of Mississippi, who later became the free White Citizens of the State of Mississippi, who inhabit the land within the boundaries of the lawful State, as described in her constitution of 1832, do hereby claim the land belonging to the lawful State of Mississippi and do hereby declare it our right and duty to restore to full vigour and vitality the lawful government of this State for ourselves and our posterity; and …
To set the misstatement in the Journal straight I adamantly deny saying that John Cripps is a "usurper of power." He has never held any public office. My question to Mike Tuggle was that based upon Rev. Cripps’ own web site, if he became Governor, would he not, by his own definition, be a usurper of power? To which Mike Tuggle slumped in his chair and stared at the floor. My question is fair and remains unanswered by Mike Tuggle. It was not an attack on John Cripps – it was an honest question concerning apparent League inconsistencies.
Concerning the parallels to the Republic of Texas (RT). The RT is an independent nationalist movement. In other words they are seeking a status as an independent nation called the Republic of Texas. The North-Carolina American Republic (NCAR) is a re-establishment to pre reconstruction government under the American federal Union. We are not attempting to become an independent nation and becoming "citizens of the country of our choosing." We are exercising our right to lawful government. The Federal occupiers have refused to provide a lawful government for us, leaving the people no choice but to re-establish what they have a right to by their own actions.
We used the example that was given us by our forefathers. Whenever a government becomes destructive of the ends of securing the people their rights, it becomes the right and duty of the people to institute new government. The nice thing about the present situation is that we had no need to institute anything new. We only had to re-establish what already exists. We chose to draft a Declaration of Re-establishment of lawful government, listing our grievances and declaring our actions.
Upon completion of the Declaration we held elections for the offices of the government. I was elected as Chief Magistrate. Again I do not understand the reasoning behind Mr. Tuggles wording implying that through an election where I received a unanimous vote, I "proclaimed myself" the "Chief Magistrate." When you have an office created by the Constitution and someone is elected into the position it is not a self proclaimed position.
A little background on why we chose the two terms "North-Carolina American Republic" and "Chief Magistrate," These two terms were voted on by committee to be used temporarily and in the place of "State of North Carolina" and "Governor." The reason being that we wanted to avoid confusion on having two States with the same name and with two separate individuals apparently holding the same position. These terms are used for clarification purposes only.
Not one soul in the un-reconstructed North-Carolina American Republic has ever renounced his American citizenship. I have corrected Mike on this on several occasions and he still chooses to put a negative slant on the terminology. The unconstitutional 14th Amendment that put into action the enforcement of the unconstitutional Act of April 9, 1866 that supposedly created a new form of citizenship called a "United States citizen" has no force or effect in law. It only has force and effect through conquest, which is the suspension of law. I have come to the conclusion that a "United States citizen" does not exist in law based upon a plethora of unconstitutional actions and that I am not a "14th Amendment United States citizen." I am a Citizen of the State of North Carolina organized under the Constitution of December 18, 1776 which has never been annulled or abridged by an act of the free will of its’ people. This claimed status is American citizenship.
We have not stopped paying taxes nor has the Republic ever issued a drivers license. We pay taxes to ALL lawfully constituted authorities. We do believe that to fund, in any way, usurpers that are intent to maintain the overthrow of lawful constitutional government is a violation of Art. III section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America which states that treason consists in giving aid to those at war with one of the several lawful states.
Three more words must be defined here in order to properly label the different belief systems or as Mike calls them "worldviews";
- collaborator
– n. to cooperate with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one’s own country.
- quisling
– n. One who betrays his country to the enemy and is then given political power by the conquerors.
- scalawag
– n. A white Southerner who supported Republican policy during Reconstruction, often for personal gain.
All of these terms are valid today in relation to the Reconstruction measures of the 39th Congress. It is a myth that Reconstruction ended in 1877. The usurping governments created by reconstruction are still in place. People who understand that the Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional, and that unconstitutional acts create no duty or office, have one of the three choices above to make or to have a re-establishment of un-reconstructed States "worldview."
We need to understand that in the Christian worldview might does not make right. The examples of David, Gideon and Jonathan and his armor bearer come to mind.
Mike Tuggle is right that we do risk arrest records for our beliefs. Any thing worth fighting for has risk. Our Revolutionary and Confederate ancestors risked their lives, property and honor for their beliefs. I do not understand people who proclaim to be leaders yet are fearful of something like receiving a traffic ticket. This is not the character of individuals who answered the call to duty in 1776 and 1861. The Supreme Court of the government currently in power recently ruled that citizens could be handcuffed and jailed for not wearing a seatbelt. What is to be gained when political movements are reduced to total obedience to the oppressors, where the leaders of the movement exchange the term "keep your powder dry" with "keep your seatbelt on."
I believe that merely risking an arrest record is embarassing and paltry compared to my ancestors. As Stonewall Jackson stated (paraphrased), "Take no counsel in your fears."
It is important to understand our legal stand when we go into court. In order for a court to proceed with any case it must have both jurisdiction over the subject matter (i.e. divorce, criminal, traffic, civil, etc-you can’t have a divorce hearing in a traffic court) and jurisdiction over the person/Citizen. We challenge jurisdiction over the person. When Citizens of the unreconstructed State go before a judge, the Citizen’s only weapon is the Truth. The truth is that the judge has a sworn oath to the Constitution of the United States ( Art. VI, cl.3) and all constitutional laws made in pursuance thereof. Remember that an unconstitutional Act is not a law. He is required to ignore unconstitutional Acts that conversely are not laws.
In order for the Court to get Jurisdiction over the Citizen it must prove two things, (1) that the government that the Citizen claims to have allegiance to is not a valid entity. This involves proving that the Reconstruction Acts did in fact of law annul and abolish the original State with proper authority, which is an impossibility. And (2) that his Court is properly and lawfully constituted by the consent of the free people of my State, which is an impossibility.
If the Court claims they have jurisdiction over the Citizen yet refuses to present any evidence that it in fact does have jurisdiction, it must prove that it does not derive its’ authority from conquest which is a principal of war. Art. III Sec. 3 of the US Constitution says that treason consists in waging war against any of the several states or in giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember that Governments are created to secure rights not destroy them.
The judges are in a legal quandary. They must choose to either recognize the peoples’ right to re-establish lawful, constitutional government over which they have no legitimate authority or they must maintain the unconstitutional and criminal overthrow of lawful government in violation of (1) their Art. VI oath, (2) the treason laws of Art. III, (3) Art. IV Sec. 3 by allowing the jurisdiction of an illegal state formed and erected within the jurisdiction of the lawful true state to dominate and subjugate the lawful Citizenry and (4) the principles that all government of right originates from the people and not dictated from Washington.
Americans seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between a free government - which we proudly claim that we are, and a democratic dictatorship – which facts prove that we are.
Like the old Soviet Union, we must first tear down the American Iron Curtain of Reconstruction, before we ever have a chance at autonomous self rule. How successful was Czechoslovakia in 1968 of attempted autonomous self rule. No matter how much public support or how many people they got into office it became an impossibility.
The American Iron Curtain of Reconstruction has the exact characteristics of the Soviet Iron Curtain. It has courts devoid of true justice and where law does not reign supreme, gulags for those that resist, atheistic government, a huge propaganda machine keeping the majority either in lock step with the oppressors or either too scared to resist and it gives people the illusion that they have true representation through elections. This list could quite possibly never end.
We in re-establishment choose not to listen to the Sirens' song of "come join us, come join us" espoused by the cheerleaders who claim that the current criminal usurping government is legitimate and provides true remedy.
In the preface to the book "The South Was Right," a book pushed widely by the League of the South, the Kennedy brothers (who helped found the League) state the following: "T. E. Lawrence, the famous Lawrence of Arabia, in his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, noted that the effort to free the Arabic people from Turkish rule was accomplished not when the last battle had been won but when the majority of the Arabic people no longer accepted Turkish rule as legitimate. At that point they were free. It only remained for them to stay loyal to their belief in freedom long enough for the struggle to work out the details of when and how the Turks would leave. The same point is true today for us." p.10
On p.11 they state, "....if we cannot convince our Northern neighbors to reform this current, overgrown, and unresponsive government of their making, then we shall work for the re-establishment of a Constitutional Republic known as the Confederate States of America." I agree with the Kennedy brothers on this stand with the exception that we should stop recognizing the reconstruction governments now in force and re-establish the Constitutional governments put into abeyance by the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts.
President Andrew Johnson stated in his veto of the 2nd supplemental Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867;
The remedy must come from the people themselves. They know what it is and how it is to be applied. At the present time they can not, according to the forms of the Constitution, repeal these laws; they can not remove or control this military despotism. …With abiding confidence in their patriotism, wisdom, and integrity, I am still hopeful of the future, and that in the end the rod of despotism will be broken, the armed heel of power lifted from the necks of the people, and the principles of a violated Constitution preserved.
In reading the Journal I came across this letter to the editor. I do not know this man, he seems to express frustrations that re-establishment can provide a viable remedy;
Edgefield Journal letters to editor
The fact is that the hopes of restoring our former constitutional republic by working through the system are as vain as removing an ingrown toenail from a gangrenous leg!
The political rulers of the United States, regardless of party, are both heading down the same path and dragging the rest of us with them. We cannot repair a system so far gone, and therefore the only way to preserve our faith, fortunes, and freedom is to regretfully leave the rotten edifice of the United States.
It’s too late to operate. We can only amputate.
Nicholas Bull
Abbeville, SC
Through Mike’s strange and unorthodox method of teaching I do agree with his conclusion concerning the unreconstruction movement;
"Lesson learned: when outsiders attack our finest leaders, ask yourself what they could gain by such an attack. For some, it’s money; for others, it’s power – even if it’s only make-believe power."
Many people confuse "unreconstruction" with "secession." Mike Tuggle believes in "secession," I believe in "unreconstruction." Mike obviously feels that there is no room in the movement to stop the Federal juggernaut of usurpation for any idea other than secession. For those that accept the present de facto conquering government as legitimate they must face the fact that secession is a crime. The exercise of lawful government is a right.
There is one main philosophical difference between Mike Tuggle and myself. Mike believes that the only method to be used in this war to retain our rights is to create a mass political movement, that is projected to take between 80-100 years, to effect change through popular political methods within the current system. He admits that the Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional but maintains that the present system is legitimate. I choose to operate within the law for remedy. I call a usurper a usurper and not a political ally. I chose to demand the removal of usurpers. I do not demand my "rights" from them. They have no authority to give rights. Only God does, and usurpers are not my God.
America is in "Rights" atrophy. The cure is to exercise your "Rights," not lay in bed for the next 80-100 years.
Mike says that his goal is to further Southern Independence by all honorable means. I have to think about that one.
John C. Ainsworth,
Senator, Mecklenburg County
North-Carolina/Un-reconstructed
Tigerja@bellsouth.net
|
