www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3oF0asoaCA

I cannot argue that a growing percentage of the people are publicly stating that the federal government has been overthrown from within. I cannot argue that Washington has been corrupted by unlimited power. I cannot argue that the Constitution has been thrown into the trash along with our freedom and future.

Remember the Speaker of the House’s response to the question of the constitutionality of health care:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc

What does this mean if it is true? Some patriots are ready to “lock and load” now to restore the Constitution. Are we ready for this step? Are we moral and virtuous enough to understand the reality of governing ourselves as our forefathers understood?

These questions need to be seriously considered. Our founding fathers understood what was necessary to not only secure, but maintain a free government that is guaranteed to us under natural law. This article is based on the works of Gordon Wood from his book “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” and the chapter outlining the 2nd principle in the 5000 Year Leap.

The Creator’s order of things is called “natural law”. Since our country is founded in natural law, the most important premise understood by the forefathers is that no man has the right to take away what God has given us. This includes freedom which has been taken away for us with our tacit consent. The consequences of health care legislation and financial reform were outlined clearly in Mr. Beck’s video.

The people prior to the revolution wanted independence but had self doubts that they were “good enough” to make it work. They recognized that the overriding concept of public virtue was the key ingredient necessary to become a self-governing body.

Mr. Wood outlines this concept in his book:

Precisely because republics required civic virtue and disinterestedness among their citizens, they were very fragile polities, extremely liable to corruption. Republics demanded far more morally from their citizens than monarchies did of their subjects. In monarchies each man’s desire to do what was right in his own eyes could be restrained by fear or force, by patronage or honor. In republics, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to sacrifice his personal desires, his luxuries, for the sake of the public good.

Our republic is lost because we have elected politicians with low moral character in order to appease our low sense of civic duty and continue in our apathy. Is the answer as easy as restoring honor in the upcoming elections to restore our country? Absolutely not. Every one of us must regain and practice public virtue so that we will hold not only our elected officials accountable but also our individual actions. The price of our failure rests in the eyes of children.

When was the last time that you sacrificed for the sake of the public good? Our media and government have twisted the meaning of public good to suit their own agendas and secure their grip on the people. Public good is a simple concept that starts by becoming sentient in the fate of our country. A simple admission that things will not get better because they can’t get any worse is the first step.

The first step to start recovering from alcoholism is:

We admitted we were powerless over our addiction -- that our lives had become unmanageable

We have to admit that the power of the people is an illusion. We will look back at March 21, 2010 as the first overt admission of the ruling class’s takeover of our republic. Our lives have now become controlled by illegal legislation and the fruits of our labor are being stolen and redistributed through social engineering and an out of control monetary policy. Hyperinflation will reduce our life’s work and savings into a few crumbs of bread. This is an acceptable price to ensure a future for our children but this is not the plan being implemented in the Halls of Congress.

The answer to the question of public virtue is simple and undeniable: we are not ready to restore our country. We must admit this first before we can start on the same journey that our forefathers made.

From the 5000 Year Leap:

Many Americans became extremely self-conscious about their lack of “public virtue” because of non-involvement in the affairs of government. They began to acknowledge their obsession with self-interest, the neglect of public affairs, and their disdain for the needs of the community as a whole. Gradually, a spirit of “sacrifice and reform” become manifest in all thirteen colonies.

Looking back on that period, one historian [Mr. Wood] wrote:

In the eyes of the Whigs, the two or three years before the Declaration of Independence always appears to be the great period of the Revolution, the time of greatest denial and cohesion, when men ceased to extort and abuse one another, when families and communities seemed peculiarly united, when the courts were wonderfully free of that constant bickering over land and credit that had dominated their colonial life.

The maturing of the colonists for a greater good gave the world the greatest nation every seen on the face of the earth. We have now reaped the consequences of our lack of public virtue. Is America up to the challenge to restore our country in the future? The American spirit is currently a few pieces of glowing embers. It is up to us to decide if we can rekindle this spirit into the greatness we were given at such a high cost. It is also up to us if we don’t fan the flames of freedom and descend into a period of darkness.

My personal observations over the past 18 months of travel and meetings have produced a mixed assessment for our future. I believe that we will have to undergo a more severe degree of suffering than what we have already endured in order to understand the precipice upon which we now all stand. A patriot is hard to find these days. Life, fortune and sacred honor mean nothing to most Americans at this point in time. Mr. Beck’s question to America is valid: “Why are we not in the streets”?

The time will come when we will be in the streets and I pray that we have the wisdom to understand what is required to restore and maintain a true republic.

David DeGerolamo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jjXCm3W4hA

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night. Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia. 

Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, “I hope it’s as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money.” 

He added, “We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on … we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world.”

Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities. 

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday’s report. 

Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government’s bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world’s largest insurance company. 

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG’s collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money. 

Shouldn’t Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions “before they collect the taxpayers’ dollars?” Grassley asked. “It’s a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn’t be getting disaster aid.” 

Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel. 

“I think we didn’t get the information because they consider it very embarrassing,” Grassley said, “and they ought to consider it very embarrassing.” 

The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG’s debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding. 

“The only thing I can tell you is that people have the right to know, and the Fed and the public’s business ought to be more public,” Grassley said. 

The list of companies receiving money includes a few familiar foreign banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays. 

DZ AG Deutsche Zantrake Genossenschaftz Bank, a German cooperative banking group, received $1.2 billion, more than a quarter of the money Goldman paid out. 

Warren, in testimony Wednesday, said that the rescue of AIG “distorted the marketplace by turning AIG’s risky bets into fully guaranteed transactions. Instead of forcing AIG and its counterparties to bear the costs of the company’s failure, the government shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers.” 

Grassley stressed the importance of transparency in the marketplace, as well as in the government’s actions. 

“Just like the government, markets need more transparency, and consequently this is some of that transparency because we’ve got to rebuild confidence to make the markets work properly,” Grassley said. 

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary. 

“I think it proves that he knew a lot more at the time than he told,” Grassley said. “And he surely knew where this money was going to go. If he didn’t, he should have known before they let the money out of their bank up there.” 

An attempt to reach Geithner Friday night through the White House public information office was unsuccessful.

Grassley has for years pushed to give the Government Accountability Office more oversight of the Federal Reserve.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said he would propose that the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations convene hearings on the need for more Federal Reserve oversight. Braley is a member of the subcommittee.

Braley said of Geithner, “I would assume he would be someone we would want to hear from because he would have firsthand knowledge.”

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

He said he was confident that the financial regulatory reform bill signed by President Obama this week would help provide better oversight than the AIG bailout included.

“There was no regulatory framework in place,” Braley said. “We had to put something in place to begin reining them in. I’m confident they will begin to be able to do that.”

So let’s get right to it. NCFreedom.us has been accused of having a secret agenda in collaboration with John Ainsworth which would put people and their families in danger. For those of you who know John and have listened to his presentations, you can stop laughing.

1. NCFreedom does have a secret agenda or at least I do. The charter for this organization states that we are a communications’ network for patriot groups. This means that we will promote the activities and events of these groups in order to let people know where to go to join local groups and coordinate our efforts on a larger scale. Although we have been successful compared to other states, our biggest obstacle to achieving this goal is and always has been personal agendas and ignorance.

The secret agenda is not so secret. The overwhelming majority of group leaders have come to the same conclusion: our country is facing economic collapse in the near future. So the secret agenda is to have a communications’ network in place across the state in which we can still communicate and hopefully restore our country and our Constitution in this event. Education and preparedness are the two methods that we are working on to achieve this goal. Sorry for the letdown for those of you who like to develop unfounded conspiracy theories.

2. NCFreedom supports John Ainsworth and his message. Unfortunately his message gets lost because of the victors’ writing of history. So what is his message in twenty words or less? Again, for those of you who know John and have listened to his presentations, you can stop laughing.

John completely documents his historical presentations. His main topic of discussion as presented at our town hall last year (click here for more information and videos) was the 14th amendment being the source of many of our current problems: anchor babies, abortion, no school prayer and banning the ten commandments in courthouses. For those who find history boring and don’t have the time to read, let your chains rest lightly on your shoulders but don’t make false accusations.

3. John Ainsworth asserts that North Carolina is a republic. Where would he get such heresy?

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 Too bad the government in Washington does not read this article too closely as it applies to the invasion of Arizona. Every one of us reading this article should revere the US Constitution and working diligently to restore it. The reason why North Carolina seceded from the Union was that we would not attack another state (South Carolina) in defiance of the Constitution. If we do not follow the Constitution, we have no rule of law and therefore no republic on any level.

4. John Ainsworth supports the U.S. Constitution and he is adamant that we follow it. If we do not want to hear the truth as documented, please find the nearest door and enter the land of tyranny and Socialism.

5. I have been called a missionary and the most passive activist that people have ever met. I find that keeping quiet for most of the time adds weight to the times when I do speak. I must admit that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both used this method. However, to suggest that my efforts for the past eighteen months have been the result of a secret agenda that would endanger anyone’s family is fighting words: literally. This kind of divisive rhetoric is right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Nothing is more paramount that passing a country to our children that will not enslave them. That is my personal agenda to which I have dedicated my life, fortune and sacred honor.

Now if any one wants to debate this in an honorable, open forum, add your comments here or I will be willing to personally meet to discuss this further. The time for truth and honor is now.

David DeGerolamo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2J__GCogU

Consider this:

Constitutionalist John Whitehead – who is also a careful master researcher – points out (“Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home,” Rutherford.org, June 28), that “unbeknownst to most Americans, remote-controlled pilotless aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America’s borders, and then as a means of monitoring citizens.”

He cites a 2006 news story, moreover, that “one North Carolina county is using a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air – close enough to identify faces.”

Read the entire article, here…

Government surveillance by unmanned drones may just be another loss of freedom that most Americans will consider acceptable. Just add it to the list: health care, stimulus, finance reform, automotive bailout of the unions and TARP. When you wake up in the not too distant future and see the chickens have come home to roost, I hope you will remember what freedom was so that you can try to explain it your children.

David DeGerolamo

And some people want to know what we have against people just “doing the jobs that Americans won’t do.”

James Johnson

President/Co-Founder NCFIRE 

North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement

www.NCFIRE.info

www.Facebook.com/NCFIRE

Article from Conservative American News

Written by Rob on 20 July 2010

Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an illegal Mexican at a protest march in Texas. This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic. Don’t be logical, don’t respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think that makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend.

Jim Moore reporting for a Houston TV station on the streets of downtown Houston

Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching in the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?

Juan: We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will bring Houston to its knees!

Jim: What rights?

Juan: Our right to live here…legally. Our right to get all the benefits you get.

Jim: When did you come to the United States?

Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven
other friends.

Jim: Why did you come?

Juan: For work I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security. Nothing like that in Mexico!

Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you
came?

Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a right to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.

Jim: How did you acquire those documents?

Juan: From a guy in Dallas . He charged me a lot of money too.

Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged?

Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.

Jim: What is the “right” you speak of?

Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!

Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about rights for Aliens.

Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights, like the right to pursue happiness. I wasn’t happy in Mexico, so I came here.

Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and that document speaks to unalienable rights. Not Alien rights.

Juan: Whatever.

Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are you carrying a Mexican Flag?

Juan: Because I am Mexican.

Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty … to become a US citizen.

Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful owner.

Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After winning the war with Mexico, Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was not stolen from Mexico.

Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New Mexico and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like oil and babies. You are a country of thieves.

Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?

Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over the place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out How is this fair?

Jim: So, you really don’t want to become an American citizen then.

Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. That’s another thing we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish. Teachers must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak Spanish than English. It is our right!

Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?

Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that’s different.

Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live wherever they please.

Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want Mexico too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why would you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, or welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my country. Stay in the country of your birth.

Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. Thank you for your comments.

Juan: Viva Mexico!

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 – August 2010 issue

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

Raleigh Capital Tax Day Tea Party April 15, 2010

We were interviewed in this artcle, due to copyrights, you must go to link below to read.  It’s a good artcle.

http://heraldsun.com/pages/chh_dan_way

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Tea partiers in North Carolina have turned their immediate attention away from rallies and protests to the next big issue: the November election.

At a recent “kitchen table meetup” in Chatham County, all the talk among the group of 14 conservative-voters was ousting progressive county commissioners.

“I think the basic American does not feel represented that’s why these kitchen table meetups are starting,” said meeting host Randy Dye of Pittsboro.

They meet Wednesday evenings to talk politics and plan for the future.

Dye’s wife Gina led the discussion, “I really think November is going to be a test whether people are serious about change. We’ve had the rallies, the tea parties; it’ll be kind of a test to see if people are really committed to making the change or just making noise.”

N.C. 4th District Republican Congressional candidate BJ Lawson stopped by to hear concerns. He woos votes one by one, much like the tea party movement continues to build from the ground up.

But the tea party is not a political party. Right now the movement is a number of autonomous conservative groups with a common belief that the federal government in particular has expanded its reach too far.

“These are people who are really upset with status quo policy and the direction the country is going in,” said N.C. State University political scientist Andy Taylor. ”They generally beileve the government is spending too much, initiating too many programs, regulating too much and perhaps taking away too many liberties.”

But will these registered voters be a force of change in November?

“I think this will probably be a bad year for Democratic incumbents rather than Republican incumbents largely because of the general feelings out there amongst the public and those who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement,” Taylor said. “But will it be enough to push Republicans BJ Lawson and Bill Randall past Democratic incumbents like David Price and Brad Miller, respectively — that’s an open question. It’s going to be difficult, they’ve got a lot to overcome.”

Both districts have a heavier concentration of Democratic voters, so Repubulican candidates know they have to go after the unaffiliated vote.

The tea party movement includes many registered Republicans, but independent voters like David DeGerolamo of Wake County are attracted to the Tea Party cause as well.

“The recent financial reform bill was the final straw,” DeGerolamo said. 

But even he admits ousting incumbents — no matter their traditional political party — is a long time coming.

“I think a national movement will occur over time. Some of the national movements right now are in it for personal agendas, and that’s not going to work when you are working with small grassroots groups at the state or local level,” DeGerolamo said.

Hear more from DeGerolamo, Dye, plus Triangle Conservatives Unite! founder Laura Long and N.C. Republican Party Chairman Tom Fetzer in the video monitor above.

View news clip at below link.  They gave us over a 3  min, 45 sec segment which is unheard of for a news segment

http://durhamcounty.mync.com/site/durhamcounty/news/story/53305/the-tea-party-movement-in-the-triangle/