Wisdom of Keith Broaders
Click on my image to donate to help me educate America
To access more quotations
If I Ran for Congress
(Please Share This on Facebook)
If I were to run for Congress, I would only serve one term, (government should be service, not a career). I would represent the people, NOT a political party or the Wall Street bankers. All of my votes in the House would support individual liberty and the Constitution.
While all of the other Congressmen and women would be busy spending a large portion of their time scrambling for donations to get re-elected, I would use all of my time to honor my oath and always remember to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
In addition, I would;
Also I would like to point out that I would not necessarily just be running for the purpose of trying to win. My goal would also be to educate the voters and my political opponents on the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
So there's my list. How about yours?
I would like to invite someone in every Congressional District to run for Congress with my platform.
Would you ever consider doing what John Kennedy did in restructuring the US dollar to relieve Americans from the debt to the private Federal Reserve with it's present 106 year old stronghold on the American economy?
I would like to see the 16th Amendment REPEALED! Perhaps, I misjudged you, Mr. Robin.
I hear a lot about the 17th, which is very ambiguous, but no-one attacks the 16th... The very worst!
I suggest you check the records Fred,
First of all, Bill Benson covered this subject quite extensively in his book, "The Law That Never Was". Also, we have a folder dedicated to examining all of the amendments to the Constitution, the 16th notwithstanding. Here is a LINK to one of them.
I suggest you simple check out the whole folder.
Thank you, Morton. I will definitely check that out. I have never understood how "Asleep at the wheel" our nation must have been in 1913.
There was plenty of opposition to this administration's blatant violations of common sense and the Constitution.
Here's the truth about a couple of the events that occurred in 1913. The 16th Amendment was declared ratified on Feb 3rd, 1913 by a lame duck Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox. The incoming SOS, Williams Jennings Bryan, (appointed Mar. 5th, 1913), then declared the unconstitutional 17th Amendment ratified on Apr. 8th, 1913.
Here's a little bit on W.J.B.
Bryan won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1890 and served until 1895, championing Populist causes such as the free coinage of silver, national income tax, (16th Amendment), and direct election of Senators, (17th Amendment).
Then, on April 14th, that very same year, the "unsinkable" Titanic went down with John Astor and a couple of his rich friends on it. See the dates? Curious isn't it? The timeline is extremely suspect if you ask me. Why?
Because, it is claimed that the three were on their way to America to mount serious opposition to the "Aldridge Plan" aka The Federal Reserve Act. This Act was jammed through final approvals on Dec. 23rd, 1913. Another interesting date, don't you think?
You see, these actions were accomplished with a great amount of secrecy and corruption at the highest levels, complete with Mafia-like tactics.
We did not have our head buried in the sand. We were hornswaggled, bamboozled, blindsided. Lied to!
Once again, I thank you!
I had not heard the part about the Titanic. I was aware of the cloud of secrecy surrounding the 16th and its ratification, or lack thereof. I am still fuzzy-headed over the 17th. Was it not properly ratified? I would think a direct vote of the people would cause a Senator to be more responsive to those who elected him and has it within their power to replace him.
Senators selected by the state legislators, would seem more prone to promote cronyism. I am certainly no expert in matters of the Constitution and offer my thoughts in hope of gaining some understanding from those with differing views.
Since I have admitted to being fuzzy-headed and no expert, I have some difficulty reading Art. I, Sec. 2, 3rd Paragraph: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." I read it to mean, that we cannot have two or more, within 30,000, but nowhere do I see a mandate for a representative for each 30,000.
I can help, but this site is rife with answers to these questions and more. May I suggest that you peruse our Forums and Folders section. There is a folder for the 17th Amendment. There is another one referencing the Constitution and controversial amendments which can help with understanding the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment and we have another folder called Representation, dedicated entirely to explaining the difference between the first definition of "exceed" and the second and more appropriate definition, to whit;
"...go beyond what is allowed or stipulated by a set limit, (especially of one's authority)."
Morton, I appreciate the guidance. I am an old guy and not too good at navigating the web site. I fully realize that when we differ on Constitutional matters, that the reason is most likely due to my misunderstanding of our founders intent.
The Titanic actually went down the year before. The Aldridge Plan (The FRA), needed the security of knowing that their richest and most vehement opposition would be "out of the way". So they got that "out of the way" first.