Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

Erroneous interpretations of the US Constitution, treason, term limits, rule of law, and disqualification for serving as President are discussed below.

Erroneous Interpretations of the Constitution
Many conservative leaders and spokesmen mislead their followers and listeners in at least three important aspects related to the US Constitution.
First, they imply or say that the US Constitution is a contract or agreement between the States and the US government. The US Constitution is not and cannot be a contract between the States and the US government. Before the States adopted the Constitution and acceded to the union formed under it, the US government did not exist. Thus, the US Constitution created the US government. Therefore, the US Constitution cannot be a contract between the US government and the States. Instead, it is a contract among the States, and it created the US government as the administrator of that contract. According to the preamble, it is the “Constitution for the United States of American” and, consequently, not the “Constitution of the United States of America.”
Second, they give the phrase “We the People” in the Preamble of the US Constitution a misleading, or worse a deliberately wrong, interpretation. They speak of “We the People” as though it applies to or means one body politic for the whole union. This is the old nationalist interpretation of Webster and Lincoln, and it is wrong. “We the People” referred to the nine body politics that acceded from the old union under the Articles of Confederation to form the new union under the US Constitution. Now, “We the People” refers to fifty body politics or States. It means “We the People of the States as States.” The drafters initially listed the thirteen States in the preamble. However, they were uncertain if all the States would secede from the existing union and accede to the new union under the new constitution. So, they did not list the States. Moreover, each individual State acting as an independent sovereign body politic adopted the Constitution; that is, representatives of the people of each State in that State’s convention adopted the Constitution. A plebiscite of the people as a whole, that is, all the people of all the States acting as one body politic, did not adopt the US Constitution, either directly or indirectly through a representative convention.
Third, they apply the first nine amendments to the States. Those who drafted and adopted these amendments intended for them to apply only to the US government and never to the States. Each State had similar provisions in its own constitution to restrict its State government. With perhaps rare exception, none were ever applied to the States until the 1930s, when the Supreme Court began to misinterpret the fourteenth amendment to apply the first nine amendments to States — this is the incorporation theory of the fourteenth amendment. (With this theory, federal judges began finding all sorts of things in the Constitution that are not there, such as, the right to an abortion.) Those who drafted and adopted the fourteenth amendment never intended it to apply the first nine amendments to the States. Moreover, because the fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally and at the point of a gun, it should have no weight, and honest, patriotic judges should ignore it. (Along with the general welfare clause, interstate commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, the fourteenth amendment is responsible for consolidating and concentrating nearly all political power into the US government and to reducing the States to mere administrative provinces.)
One would expect progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives to promote these three errors because they are Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, who want to centralize and concentrate all power into the US government for the benefit of the ruling elite. However, true conservatives should oppose these three erroneous interpretations. Any conservative leader or spokesman who supports any of the above errors, and especially if he supports all three, is an agent of the ruling elite or an ignoramus. Like the progressives, their interpretation of the US Constitution is Hamiltonian and Lincolnian and not Jeffersonian and Calhounian (the decentralization and dispersal of power). Therefore, true conservatives should not follow them.

Treason
Some conservatives claim that the people (the Deep State) within the US government who are trying to overthrow President Trump and remove him from office are guilty of treason. Yet, is this true?
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Notice the pronouns; they are plural. Obviously, each of the States individually [Jeffersonian-Calhounian] is meant and not all the States together as a single unit [Hamiltonian-Lincolnian]).
According to the constitutional definition, treason is warring against one or more States or aiding an enemy of the States. An internal coup to overthrow a president does not meet this definition of treason.
If one wants to find really treasonous actions, he needs only to look at presidents, Congresses, federal judges, and federal bureaucrats. These people have been warring against the States since 1861 and have been highly successful in destroying them in every way but name.

Term Limits
For years, people have been debating limiting the term of office for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. However, much more than that is needed.
The argument against limiting the terms of Congressmen is that a Congressman with only two or three years of office is at a great disadvantage when he faces a bureaucrat with 20 to 30 years of experience of manipulating Congress.
To solve this problem, among others, the length of employment in the US government needs to be limited. No one should be allowed to receive a paycheck from the US government for more than, say, 10 or 12 years. That is, the total time that a person serves as President, Representative, Senator, a federal judge, appointed officeholder, civil servant, and a member of the armed forces when combined should not exceed 10 or 12 years.
One benefit of this total limitation is that employees will live most of their lives under the laws and regulations that they have enacted or enforced. Inferior judges who cannot read and understand the Constitution will not spend a lifetime making unconstitutional rulings. The top-heavy armed forces will less likely be overflowing with generals and admirals who are much better at politically correct politics than they are at being real generals and admirals. Moreover, the country would have a strong incentive to have well-trained and heavily armed militias, which would greatly aid the people in defending themselves from an oppressive government. Another benefit is that bureaucrats would have less incentive to build empires since they will not be there to rule over them. Also, far less information would be concealed from the people (if we really have a government of, by, and for the people, i.e., the people are the government, and governmental employees are the servants of the people, then employees of the government should keep no secret from the people). The advantages listed above are just some benefits of limiting the total employment in the US government. However, the most important benefit would be to move the government from a government of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, and for bureaucrats to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
(Furthermore, prohibiting any former employee of the US government, i.e., anyone who has received a salary from the US government, from working as a contractor for the US government or for a company that grosses more than, say, 10 percent of its income from the US government after his termination of employment is desirable. Likewise, forbidding any former employee from serving on any commission, advisory board, etc. is also desirable. Such prohibitions reduces the likelihood of corruption.)

Rule of Law
Politicians are always preaching the rule of law. With rare exceptions, almost no Representative, Senator, President, or federal judge has ever attempted to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution, the fundamental law of the country. Once sworn in, they proceed to govern as though the Constitution did not exist. If the rule of law existed in the United States, the US government would be less than 10 percent of its current size, and most of the country’s problems would not exist.

Disqualification for Serving as President
A friend of mine once said that if anyone desires to be President, he should be disqualified because he is already displaying too much lust for power.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Josephus Daniels

Josephus Daniels

Thomas Allen

Josephus Daniels (1862–1948) owned the Raleigh News & Observer from 1898 until his death in 1948 when the paper passed to his descendants. He is reputed to have been a White supremacist, who used his paper to promote White supremacy. (Now, the owners, who bought the paper in 1995, use the newspaper to promote Black supremacy.) Daniels was the Secretary of the Navy (1913–1921) under President Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Mexico between 1933 and 1942.

One of the most despicable acts of unconditional surrenders to Black supremacy has to be the Daniels family taking down Josephus Daniels’ statue. His family took down the statue before even a threat was made. His grandson and great-grandson are a disgrace to their grandfather and great-grandfather. Moreover, this act is a blatant violation of the Fifth Commandment; it greatly dishonors one’s ancestors. If Daniels was as detestable as his family claims, why did they erect a statue in his honor?

Would Daniels be proud that his descendants who have become White-hating, racial nihilist, wokespersons, and social justice warriors, who worship Black supremacy, Black privilege, and Black power? Or, would he be disappointed in and ashamed of them? Regardless, their action is so disgraceful that no self-respecting Black will want to have anything to do with them — other than to take their wealth.

When the war comes, Blacks will take out the albusphobic, Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic Whites who destroy memorials to Southerners and other Whites quicker than they will any so-called White supremacists because these will offer no resistance. They see their duty as sacrificing themselves to their Black masters.

What will Whites receive from the removal of the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Whites? They will receive nothing desirable. Blacks will repay them with ever more degrading demands. If these demands are not met with alacrity and abasement, Blacks will vandalize, riot, loot, burn, and kill until they are met with extortionary and usury interest. Why should not Blacks behave like this when all they face are White albusphobes, who beg to surrender to Blacks so that the Blacks can whip them without mercy? Such is the just reward for anyone who destroys their family heritage the way that the Daniels have.

Now is the time for the Raleigh News & Observer to take the honorable action. It needs to go out of business immediately. Its buildings need to be torn down. All its equipment and other property need to be scrapped. Nothing should be salvaged because it would contaminate the new owner with racism and White supremacy. Josephus Daniels’ racism and White supremacy have so contaminated the News & Observer that no amount of repentance can redeem it. His descendants tried for years to cleanse the taint of racism and White supremacy before they sold the paper to another. Even the new owner has failed. Once an organization is infected with White supremacy and racism, it is beyond redemption. It must be eradicated. That is why the White race, especially those who grovel, needs to be genocided. If you do not believe me, ask Black Lives Matter.

These albusphobic, Dixiephobic, and Confederaphobic Whites, who enthrall themselves as wokespersons and social justice warriors, will avail themselves of nothing. Black Lives Matters and Blacks, in general, cannot respect such groveling self-abasing White albusphobes and consider them a joke — although their words and actions often say otherwise. Blacks see White albusphobes as traitors to their White kindred and, therefore, use them to advance the Black agenda of Black power, Black privilege, and Black supremacy. Consequently, removing the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Southerners will only lead to more violence and racial disharmony and more demands by Blacks and more surrenders by Whites. The only reason Blacks do not want to genocide the White race is that they need White slaves to produce wealth for them to plunder. However, far too many Whites do want to genocide the White race to rid the universe of its greatest disease: whitism.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1995 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Is Newt Gingrich a liberal in conservative clothing? Being a member of the Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), he has done little to oppose moving toward a one-world fascist state. He supported both NAFTA and GATT. (That GATT would have been passed by the new Congress is doubtful, which is why Clinton, who is also a member of the CFR, pushed to have the lame-duck Congress vote on GATT. Gingrich did not oppose GATT being brought before the lame-duck Congress, many of whose members had been voted out of office. He feared that the new Congress would defeat the “treaty.” He has been successful in keeping the House of Representatives from reconsidering the “treaty.”)

In order to consolidate his control over the Republicans in the House of Representatives, Gingrich came up with the “Contract with America.” Although the Contract contained several needed reforms, its purpose was not to reform the U.S. government, but to control the freshmen Republicans. The freshmen Republicans had been elected by people who wanted real reform and who wanted the illegal power that the U. S. government had usurped returned to the people and their States. While the freshmen Republicans were running on platforms to bring the U. S. government back into its constitutional bounds, the Contract guaranteed that only minor inconsequential changes would be made. It has prevented real reform from occurring. The Contract served to turn the anti-Washington feelings that swept so many incumbents out of office into an endorsement of the old-line establishment Republican Party.

Since Gingrich has been elected Speaker of the House, he has processed to accumulated unprecedented power into the office of the Speaker. Obviously, he does not believe in the dispersal and decentralization of power as do true conservatives. He is rapidly becoming dictator of the House of Representatives, especially of the Republicans in the House. In the name of reform, he is using his power to promote himself and the establishment. Furthermore, he uses his power to promote pseudo reforms and to thwart real reforms. This consolidation of power will enable him to deliver the votes for the establishment when the time comes. The vote will be for more, not less, government and socialism. With this power, Gingrich will be able to prevent real, needed reform from occurring.

Gingrich’s debate with President Clinton illustrates that Gingrich does not oppose liberalism. His arguments and disagreements with the President are over details, not principles or substance. (The primary purpose of the debate was to elevate the standing of the President in the eyes of the public. In achieving this goal, it was somewhat successful.)

Gingrich has also supported giving the President even more power by giving him the line-item veto on budgets and repealing the War Powers Act, which limits the amount of time that the President can commit the armed forces without a Congressional declaration of war.

A good indication of the direction that Gingrich is pulling the House Republican is the reaction of the establishment press. When Gingrich was pushing his Contract, the press perceived this as a move to the right, and Gingrich received much negative treatment. Since then the establishment press has learned how hallow much of the Contract is. Also, since becoming Speaker, Gingrich has made clear that he does not oppose a one-world fascist state, but he plans to deliver the votes in favor of issues that support such a state.

Another indication of Gingrich’s liberalism is his voting record. One conservative index shows Gingrich voting to the left of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-professed socialist representing Vermont. He left the Democratic Party because it was too far to the right. According to this index, Gingrich is more of a socialist than the socialist is.

Gingrich is an establishment conservative. He is part of the establishment that has controlled the United States government most of this century [i.e., the twentieth century]. In spite of any rhetoric to the contrary — and virtually no rhetoric to the contrary has occurred — he supports a one-world fascist state. As the consolidation and concentration of political power into the U. S. government are necessary to achieve the goal of a fascist world state, he cannot be counted on to oppose the consolidation and concentration of political power in Washington — much less reverse the trend.

[Moreover, how Gingrich has treated his wives is reprehensible. He left his first wife while she was in a hospital suffering from cancer for his second wife. {When Deb was in the hospital, a few times a nurse would comment on me being there every day. I replied that I was not Newt Gingrich.} He left his second wife when he later decided to campaign to be President because she was not pretty enough to be the first-lady.]

Copyright © 1995, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

Thomas Allen

In Solving the Exodus Mystery, Volume 1 (1999), Ted Stewart identifies the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His arguments should convince everyone who is not an orthodox Egyptologist.

According to Stewart, the Exodus occurred in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1498.) According to the orthodox dating system of Egypt, Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty was the Pharaoh of the Exodus; his reign according to one orthodox chronology was 1479 to 1426 B.C. (Another orthodox chronology gives his reign as 1504 to 1452 B.C.) However, nothing in the history of Thutmose III’s reign matches the events of the Exodus.

Steward argues that the orthodox Egyptian chronology, which has changed over the years, is about 300 years too long. Consequently, he places Thutmose III’s reign from 1140 to 1086 B.C.

None of the Egyptian historical records of the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Dynasties match the description given in the Bible about Egypt in the time of Joseph or Moses. Therefore, many modern scholars consider the Biblical accounts of Joseph and Moses to be myths.

However, Stewart argues that the Egyptian and Biblical scholars are looking at the wrong dynasties. He evidences that Joseph and Moses lived during the Twelfth Dynasty and that Egyptian records of that Dynasty match the Biblical Account.

Moreover, Steward also adjusted the traditional Biblical dating of Ussher, Beecher, and others. Scholars who use the New International Version and like translations have the Israelites being in Egypt for 430 years beginning when Jacob entered Egypt and ending 430 years later with the Exodus. Scholars who use the King James Version and like translations argue that the 430 years begin with God’s promise to Abraham. Steward agrees with the scholars who follow the King James translation. Consequently, Steward reduces the time that the Israelites were in Egypt from 430 years to 210 years. With the adjustment to the traditional Biblical chronology, Biblical chronology matches his revised Egyptian chronology.

According to the Biblical account, Stewart states that Joseph became Pharaoh’s Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) Based on his chronology, he identifies Sesostris I as the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His chronology gives Sesostris I’s reign from 1667 to 1625 B.C. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia gives his reign as 1971 to 1926 B.C., and the New Encyclopaedia Britannica gives 1916 to 1876 B.C. Carbon 14 dating is 1680 B.C.)

Based on his revised chronology and the Egyptian historical record, Stewart identifies Amenemhet IV as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. According to his chronology, Amenemhet IV reigned from 1456 to 1446 B.C. (According to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, he died in 1792 B.C.) Amenemhet IV seems to have vanished in 1446 B.C. Nothing is heard of him afterward, and his tomb has never been found. His sister-wife became queen and reigned four years until 1450 B.C. when the Twelfth Dynasty ended.

Thus, Amenemhet I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty, was Pharaoh when Joseph entered Egypt in 1678 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1718 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1736 B.C.). Sesostris I appointed Joseph Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716, and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) When Moses was born in 1526 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1571 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1578 B.C.), Sesostris III was Pharaoh. He was the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph. During the reign of Amenemhet III, Moses fled Egypt in 1486 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1989 B.C.) When Moses returned to Egypt in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491, Beecher’s is 1498), Amenemhet IV was Pharaoh. Soon after Moses’ return, came the plagues and the Exodus.

By adjusting the Egyptian and Biblical chronology, Stewart has identified the Pharaohs of Joseph’s and Moses’ time. He confirms that the Twelfth Dynasty is the correct Dynasty by comparing the Biblical account of Joseph and Moses with the Egyptian historical record.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.