Freedom's Phoenix – "Uncovering the Secrets and Exposing the Lies"
 
Current Bitcoin
Price:
$513.21

Provided by
BitPay.com
 
Contribute Bitcoin to
Freedom's Phoenix



Scan the QR Code above, or
double-click on the text in the
box, copy it, and paste it into your
Bitcoin payment application.
Contribute Funding by
PayPal or Credit Card

 
Log-In

See Complete Menu

Special Editions
Translate Page
RSS Feeds
 


Declare Your
Independence

with Ernest Hancock

 
Log-In
Front Page
Page Two
 
 

Freedom's Phoenix
Online Magazine

 
Freedom Forum
Letters to the Editor
Report The News
Newsletter Sign-Up
 

Anarchives:

 

 

Search by Keyword

    Contents by Subject
    Radio/TV Shows
    Feature Articles
    Opinion Columns
    News Stories
    Newsletters
 
 


 

 

 
   

NEWS LINKS

Sign up to receive the Freedom's Phoenix Headlines by Email.

HELP FUND FREEDOM'S PHOENIX!
Make a one-time or periodic contribution.
Use your credit card or PayPal account.

Join us on our
Social Networks

Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network:

     

Constitution Set to Die Next Year

News Link  •  Constitution

Constitution Set to Die Next Year


03-29-2012  •  http://freedombunker.com, By James Daniels 
 Schedule a day off next year for the Constitution’s funeral.
 
The NSA’s Utah Data Center (UDC) is set to become fully operational in 2013. The facility is supposedly going to be capable of monitoring just about every aspect of your life, including transactions, phone calls and Internet activity.

We are approaching the point of no return. Let’s face it, Ron Paul has only a remote chance of being our next President, and I simply don’t believe that he’d last long if he somehow won. What are the chances that at least 1 powerful person or group wouldn’t, well, change things as he began to disassemble the current elitist empire?

 
Read Full Story
Reported by Robert Lee
Additional related items you might find interesting:
News Link  •  Constitution
GLPVCs TheRawFeedLive - Live Interview At The Bundy Ranch; Nevada
04-15-2014  •  http://therawfeedlive.com 
News Link  •  Constitution
Could U.S. Constitution Be Changed to Eliminate Second Amendment?
04-04-2014  •  http://www.prisonplanet.com, Paul Joseph Watson 
News Link  •  Constitution
Martin Armstrong Warns Of 2016 Constitutional Convention
04-03-2014  •  www.zerohedge.com 

Comments in Response

Comment by: Bertha Anonimo (#047283)
   Entered on: 2012-04-02 12:55:13

 Okay, the submission has a glitz. I think it is a submission problem -- out of control.

Comment by: Anonymous75 (#045815)
   Entered on: 2012-04-02 12:51:15

Reposted without glitz.

Let me redirect the discussion to the issue. The comments are going outside of the issue raised. The discussion started from Powell Gammill’s comment below when he said "The promise of the CONstitution was put to rest in 1794."

When I asked Gammill to explain clearly what he meant to start an intelligent discussion, he preferred not to. But I know exactly what he meant. He was referring to the "demise" ["put to rest"] of the Constitution in 1794. And that was when the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution took place in 1794 -- the State was immunized from the filing of civil suit of individuals against the State. To an anti-Statist like Gammill, the "promise" of the Constitution has died on that year. JV made a comment on this below, and JV hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

Gammill showed his "mental dishonesty" when he instead adopted Dennis Treybil’s comment that he was referring to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 when he said that the "promise of the Constitution" had died on that year.

There was NO promise of the Constitution that ever took place and died in the Whiskey Rebellion! The event that took place was purely a rebellion against the enforcement of a tax law that was politically motivated – the refusal to pay an excise tax on whiskey – which was later on repealed.

Legal historian Christian G. Fritz reported that at that time "there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States" let alone a promise or guarantee that the State could be sued without its consent.

Since anti-Statist Gammill was not clear in his statement, Treybil posted a comment that he MIGHT be referring to the Whiskey Rebellion. Gammill grabbed that as what he meant, by making a confirmatory comment that the Whiskey Rebellion was what he was referring to when said that the "promise of the Constitution was put to rest," when in fact he knew the Eleventh Amendment was what he meant. There was no constitutional promise in the Whiskey Rebellion whatsoever [not the bone of the controversy] that the State could not be sued at that time because that was never the issue why the excise tax protesters launched a rebellion.

Why was there a "mental dishonesty"? It is because I put Gammill on the bind with his original comment, and he knew I could and would prove him wrong!

That’s the problem when you let your anger run you out of a deeper thinking. The result is, you become ruthless not just reckless when you start lying.

Comment by: Anonymous75 (#045815)
   Entered on: 2012-04-02 12:37:40

Let me redirect the discussion to the issue. The comments are going outside of the issue raised. The discussion started from Powell Gammill’s comment below when he said "The promise of the CONstitution was put to rest in 1794." When I asked Gammill to explain clearly what he meant to start an intelligent discussion, he preferred not to. But I know exactly what he meant. He was referring to the "demise" ["put to rest"] of the Constitution in 1794. And that was when the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution took place in 1794 -- the State was immunized from the filing of civil suit of individuals against the State. To an anti-Statist like Gammill, the "promise" of the Constitution has died on that year. JV made a comment on this below, and JV hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

Gammill showed his "mental dishonesty" when he instead adopted Dennis Treybil’s comment that he was referring to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 when he said that the "promise of the Constitution" had died on that year.

There was NO promise of the Constitution that ever took place and died in the Whiskey Rebellion! The event that took place was purely a rebellion against the enforcement of the tax law that was politically motivated – the refusal to pay an excise tax on whiskey – which was later on repealed.

Legal historian Christian G. Fritz reported that at that time "there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States" let alone a promise or guarantee that the State could be sued without its consent.

Since anti-Statist Gammill was not clear in his statement, Treybil posted a comment that he MIGHT be referring to the Whiskey Rebellion. Gammill grabbed that as what he meant, by making a confirmatory comment that the Whiskey Rebellion was what he meant when said that the "promise of the Constitution was put to rest," when in fact he knew the Eleventh Amendment was what he meant. There was no constitutional promise in the Whiskey Rebellion [not the bone of the controversy] that the State could not be sued at that time because that was never the issue why the protester launched a rebellion.

Why was there a "mental dishonesty"? It is because I put Gammill on the bind with his comment, and he knew I could and would prove him wrong! That’s the problem when you let your anger run you out of a deeper thinking. The result is, you become ruthless not just reckless when you lie.

When I asked Gammill to explain clearly what he meant to start an intelligent discussion, he preferred not to. But I know exactly what he meant. He was referring to the "demise" ["put to rest"] of the Constitution in 1794. And that was when the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution took place in 1794 -- the State was immunized from the filing of civil suit of individuals against the State. To an anti-Statist like Gammill, the "promise" of the Constitution has died on that year. JV made a comment on this below, and JV hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

Comment by: Dennis Treybil (#034261)
   Entered on: 2012-03-31 04:46:22

A couple of details wafted through my mind concerning this overnight. 

This occurs during the 2nd year of Washington's 2nd term in office.  There were no constitutionally-imposed presidential term limits at the time.  I think Washington may have begun to feel his oats.  On the other hand, he did pardon a couple of those convicted of charges related to this matter.

Also, this is within 5 years of ratification of the original 7 articles and within 3 years of ratification of the Bill of Rights.  The 11th amendment weakens two articles from the Bill of Rights as mentioned earlier.

Sad.

Both could be related to taxes.  The Whiskey Tax is explicitly over a tax.  Before the 16th amendment, the language about "no direct tax" required the taxes to be collected from individuals by the state.  The federal government was not supposed to collect taxes directly from individuals.  So, if an individual took issue with, let's say, the way the state handled such tax collections, the federal government before the 11th amendment would have to hear that.  After, it wouldn't.

DC Treybil 

Comment by: Dennis Treybil (#034261)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 20:49:36

1794 was indeed a bad year, I suddenly realize.

Both the Whiskey Rebellion and the 11th amendment bode poorly for the ideals of the revolution.

Joe Vanderville offers the following explanation of the significance of the 11th amendment:

In short, the amendment immunized states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent …

If I ever knew that, I had forgotten it.  I'm gonna' go with I probably never knew it or realized its significance.

This paved the way for the federal government to leave the dirty work up to the states and wash its hands of any obligation to protect the individual.

Most often, the 10th amendment is touted as "the state's rights" amendment.  Those who call it that either overlook (or wish to distract others from noticing) the closing phrase "or to the people".  The 10th amendment is a people power amendment.

Arguably the 11th amendment weakens the "right to petition" guarantee of the first amendment, the holy of holies in the Bill of Rights according to some.  Others place it on par with the 2nd amendment or only slightly below it.

The 11th amendment replaced the people power  of the 10th amendment with the State Power meaning most often cited these days.

Better to get it right to begin with.  But if people did that reliably enough, governments would never get established.  Often as not, this particular "cure" (government) is worse than the original condition.  If the federal courts could be open as a venue for such conflicts between citizens and their state, on an occasional basis, that might be ok.  It might have worked in 1794.  Today, whatever a federal court did would likely just contribute to increased power for the federal courts or the federal government at large.

Can you spell "conundrum"?  C - O - N - D - O - M  No dummy, I said conundrum - not condom!  (But come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea during the non-consentual sex we all "get" to participate in with "THUH guvamint".)

DC Treybil

Comment by: Dennis Treybil (#034261)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 20:26:31

Excerpt from Powell: Now wars are manufactured to loot, enslave and focus the gullible serfs on an ever changing common enemy...whom matters not.  Unswerving obedience and loyalty matters all. Amerika, not so much a country as a piece of the prize. 

One of the more chilling images in Orwell's 1984 was from a point at which Wynston Smythe was crossing a large public square.  A speaker was pointing to a cage with people in it from the region of the world with with Wynston's region happened to be at war at the time.

Let's just say, since I don't recall the names of the 3 regions and am feeling not quite altruisitc enough at this moment to look them up, that the 3 regions of the world were A, B, and C respectively.  Let's just say the Winston lives in "A" while the prisoners he sees at this point are from "C".  For a long while, "A" and "B" had been whuppin' up on "C".

The ringmaster is pointing at the cages and emphasising various mundane features of one or the other occupants, declaring, while feigning disdain, how these creatures from "C" were obviously subhuman and needed to be in that cage along with everyone else from "C".

Suddenly, that cage is whisked away while Wynston watches and a new cage with different people in it replaces it.  Turns out, these folks are from "B".  The ringmaster continues his speaking without breaking cadence and begins making the same type comments about the new prisoners on display.

It seems that while A and B were whuppin' up on C, C was getting ready to push the nuclear button.  Couldn't let that happen.  Both A and B, separately, but at the same time, are wooing C.  Whoever makes C the best deal gets to join C to whup up on the loser.  Today was the day when B lost to A in that game.

The process would be repeated.  Eventually, as B became ready to push the nuclear button, A and C would enter into separate negotiations with B.  The loser of that round would become the new odd-region-out, the 1 against the other 2.

Victory and resolution was never even contemplated.

The whole object of the war was to WAGE it, not to WIN it.  That gave TPTB the excuse to grab everything up for themselves in the name of the war effort.  And it was a WAR effort, it was never about establishing peace.

As I look back on that novel, which I read in 1984 for the first and last time, I wonder whether it was a work of fiction or a monthly news magazine.

DC Treybil 

Comment by: Powell Gammill (#013871)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 15:55:59


Very good Dennis!  "Is your reference to the year 1794 based on the Whiskey Rebellion?"

  When Washington/Hamilton rounded up militia to impose their federal government tax on preservation of corn through violence despite Pennsylvania farmers objections the promise of the CONstitution was clearly that---a promise never intended to be fulfilled.  A central government to rule them all was on display.  It never got any better.

The civil war simply installed or affirmed the central government as ruler over the prior sovereign states. It also made the President of the United States an emperor.   Took some time to make this clear.

The end of the wars on now conquered indigenous peoples signaled the central government casting its hungry eyes upon all within its grasp...and its grasp was global. The pathetic Americans within its ravenous grasp were simply convenient.

Now wars are manufactured to loot, enslave and focus the gullible serfs on an ever changing common enemy...whom matters not.  Unswerving obedience and loyalty matters all. Amerika, not so much a country as a piece of the prize. 


Comment by: panocha (#045223)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 12:36:33

Annonymous75, I think you should have mercy on Editor Powell Gammill. You should take it easy on those legal rigmaroles. I don't think he is a lawyer like you who would be in the position to really understand  what you are saying. Although he is of the opinion that the Constitution was put to rest on 1794, he was not in any condition at all to explain as you requested why he said so. Had he been able to explain what he meant, I agree with you that it would have otherwise generated a sensible discussion and an interesting debate. But I notice that he can only make conclusions -- especially with cynicism and spite -- but cannot engage in intelligent conversations to support his conclusions.

Comment by: Anonymous75 (#045815)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 12:13:37

Okay, JV is right. The three people who knew what Gammill meant when he said that The promise of the CONstitution was put to rest in 1794 now include JV, Gammill and myself.

If Gammill thinks that the Constitution died because the freedom of the individual to sue the State has been taken away by the Eleventh Amendment State immunity from suit in 1794, he is still legally wrong, at least in the jurisdiction over cases under the Law on Civil Procedure. Under Article III Sec. 2, the U.S. Constitution gives the power to Congress to pass a law allowing Federal Courts to hear DIVERSITY cases.

The Law on Diversity Jurisdiction means the U.S. District Courts "has the power to hear civil cases" where the litigants and/or persons involved are of diverse citizenships.

Before going any farther from this point, I hope lawyers would read this summarized observations and give their comments using their knowledge of Diversity Jurisdiction under our Law on Civil Procedure.

Comment by: Joseph Vanderville (#044376)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 11:40:29

Phantom75, I will give a clue to those who want to post a RELEVANT comment as to why Powell Gammill in his cynical way commented that the Constitution was put to rest in 1794.

In 1794, the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution occurred on that year [March 4, 1794] and ratified on February 7, 1795. It overruled the U.S. Supreme Court on the Chisholm v. Georgia landmark case. The established Court ruling was that federal courts could hear cases in law and equity between the individual and the state.

In short, the amendment immunized states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent …

Since Gammill and his angry kind of haters are anti-Statist, the Constitution died when the right to sue the Government or the State, has been denied by this immunity doctrine of Sovereign States.

Now, I have defined the issue. Now you can post your comments that are relevant to this issue. We don’t want to unnecessarily waste our time and very limited space for interventions that are – totally disconnected as you said from the issue – as if these are coming from Mars!

 
Comment by: brag (#045216)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 11:01:31

The sophisticated, technologically advance massive surveillance infrastructure, otherwise known as the Utah Data Center will start operating in September 2013. It is just one of the national security programs currently on course. Following a continuing series of national security laws that Congress had been legislated, even prior to the enactment of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act just came into force. This put terrorists, terrorist coddlers and sympathizers on the run. Others of their kind are gasping for breath, as if they are dying with the Constitution, which in their delusional belief is supposed to protect the rights of every individual, including the freedom of terrorists to kill and their liberty to destroy. It did not surprise me at all when the National Institute of Health described this delusion as a form of "mental illness".

 
Comment by: brag (#045216)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 10:35:09

The Ron Paul follower who wrote this article believes that the "Constitution [is] Set to Die Next Year". On September next year [1013] the massive $2 billion spying infrastructure called the Utah Data Center [UDC] will become operational. This sophisticated, technologically advance national security surveillance system was purposely designed to track foreign threat to America from across the globe, as well as track down the enemy of the state from within to protect the country and U.S. citizens from terror.

Obviously, the Government is determined to win this war on terror.

Unfortunately, instead of being grateful, a few protesters from the "lunatic fringe" foolishly interpreted this vital national security program to mean that it was created purposely to destroy freedom. In that sense, to them the Constitution was set to die when UDC becomes operational next year. What a creep!

Think about this: The author regrets that Ron Paul, the only "hero" left in his mind who can "disassemble the current elitist empire" is ignored by the public in his bid to become the next President of the United States.

C’MON … GIVE ME A BREAK!

 

Comment by: Anonymous75 (#045815)
   Entered on: 2012-03-30 08:19:45

Gammill, this is what you said: "The promise of the CONstitution was put to rest in 1794." You need to be clear of what you mean. These two comments below went crazy ... totally off the rack ... totally disconnected because you were not clear of what you meant when you posted your one-sentence comment.

You are the "Editor" of this website. If you want an honest discussion on this very important issue, you must let the readers know why in your mind the Constitution was put to rest in 1794 … That’s your job supposedly as a useful "Editor" of this website. If you becloud the issue, we cannot start a fruitful discussion -- UNLESS of course your intention is to create a confusion among those poised to post comments that you do not like or even hate.

A short, curt comment is smart, but useless if it sends a wrong signal.

I know exactly what you mean when you said "the Constitution was put to rest in 1794". Maybe I am the only one who knows aside from yourself why you believed the Constitution was dead in 1794. Others with the faintest idea just made their own conclusions, and exactly like lost dogs are barking at the wrong tree.

But I am going to give you a chance to clarify your position first before I tell you why you are absolutely WRONG.

Comment by: Dennis Treybil (#034261)
   Entered on: 2012-03-29 20:29:14

Powell:

Is your reference to the year 1794 based on the Whiskey Rebellion?

True, many ideals were laid to rest in that.  Wikipedia's article mentions the protesters view that the revolution established the people as a "collective sovereign" with legitimate powers to resist the new goverenment with "extra-constitutional" means.

"Popular Sovereignty" was put to rest in the Civil War, having become associated with the right to own slaves.  Paine asserted in the Declaration of the Rights of Man that "the source of all political power  is the people."  This idea is echoed in the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974:

ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

§1. Origin and Purpose of Government

Section 1. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.

It is unfortunate that the Whiskey Tax protestors' demonstration did not immediately result in the repeal of that tax.  But the wiki goes on to say, "The tax continued to prove a difficult tax to collect."  Some out "west" continued to refuse to pay.  Eventually the tax was repealed during the Jefferson administration.  The "will of the people" belatedly was reflected in the "supreme law of the land" regarding this issue.

The constitution was never intended to prevent such controversies.  Its measures were sufficient to allow the fledgling union to weather this (and other) storm(s) without disintegrating in a massive "convulsion within".

From wiki:

 

The timing of these events would later prove to be controversial. In his book on the insurrection, Findley—a bitter political foe of Hamilton—maintained that the treasury secretary had deliberately provoked the uprising by issuing the subpoenas just before the law was made less onerous.

Government subtrefuge is a distinct possibility here - and that's what political foes are for - to keep the sorry bastards honest, or at least careful!

If the constitution is a living document, it lives in the heart of the people.  If it does not live there it is dead.  And if it ain't dead, it's circling the drain.  I hope THE Judge Andrew Napolitano's efforts and those of others will revive the document.

Consider this excerpt from Paine's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen":

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

It's well and good that the document be on the wall where everybody can see it.  It also has to be in the hearts and minds.  If it's not in hearts and minds, being publicly displayed, no matter how prominently, makes no difference.

I'll shut up now - but your point about the Whiskey Rebellion being a low ebb in the tides of observance of the revolution is well taken.

DC Treybil

Comment by: PureTrust (#010621)
   Entered on: 2012-03-29 18:46:59

As Larken Rose points out in his "I Am Allowed to Rob you" video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

... the Constitution is a parchment with ink written (scribbled) on it. When do you lay a piece of parchment, the Constitution to rest? As soon as you get done writing it, and you set it down on the desk, right? If you pick it back up, it is no longer at rest. When it DIES, however, is something else altogether.

There are 2 major, important points at play here.

1. The piece of parchment, and the ink on it, are of themselves, insignificant. The ONLY time they become important is, when people promise to do what is written via the ink on parchment.

If archaeologists happened to dig up a long forgotten document from ancient B.C. Greece, and it was something nobody had ever seen since it was buried way more than 2,000 years ago, does that document have anything to do with anything today? Probably not in the least. The most you could reasonably expect from that document is that it might shed some light on happenings in the world at the time that it was written.

When might that ancient Greek document become important today? It might become important if the governing leaders of a modern-day nation of about 330 million people, promised to DO what it says. It would absolutely become important if the President, Congress, and Judicial of the United States of America swore by oath to uphold it.

If the major members of the United States Government swore by oath to uphold the ancient Greek document, would it become alive? YES! It would become alive in the hearts and minds of the Government people, as well as all the people of the nation.

How much more alive is the Constitution, a document, the SPIRIT OF WHICH, all the Members of the United States Government have sworn in their Oath of Office to uphold?

The only way the Constitution will die with regard to Government officials is, if they perjure themselves... if they commit treasonous perjury by disobeying it, because they took an oath to uphold it. From that standpoint, the Constitution has probably been dead for a long time.

2. The piece of parchment, and the ink on it, are of themselves, insignificant. The ONLY time they become important is when a nation of people think that their Government officials are obeying the SPIRIT OF THE WORDS "scribbled" in ink on that parchment.

The people don't really know what is going on in government. Not most of them, anyway. But they think that Government officials are more or less obeying their Oath of Office... obeying the Constitution.

Well, there isn't any more-or-less about it. Either the Constitution is being obeyed, or it is not. If it is not, the people of the nation are being harmed by their Government. Why? Because the relationship of the people to their Government is one of PURE TRUST. And when you trust someone, you are in a position of being harmed by them if they don't follow through with what they have promised, the upholding of the Constitution!

If we lose the Constitution, we lose it all. If we lose the Constitution, anarchy will reign like never seen before in America. If we lose the Constitution, things will become so bad that we will long for the days of Stalin and Hitler.

It's time that we, the people, read our Constitution, so that we know what we are doing. It's time law enforcement and the military joins with the people to FORCE Government to obey their oath. It's time that the smaller Government people force the major government officials to do what they have promised.

In other words, IT IS TIME WE BRING THE CONSTITUTION TO REAL LIFE AMONG US.

Saint Paul of the Bible probably wasn't prophesying about the United States Constitution in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, but he might as well have been (NIV):
"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way."

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a Constitutionally strong nation. Vote for Ron Paul 2012. And if he is not on the ballot, write him in. And record the event with your cell-cam.
 

Comment by: Powell Gammill (#013871)
   Entered on: 2012-03-29 09:27:56

The promise of the CONstitution was put to rest in 1794.

Tags: schedule, constitution’s, funeral, center, become, operational, facility, supposedly, capable, monitoring
       
 
  Magazine / Newspaper
   Magazine Subscription Info
   Online Magazine List
   Newspaper Subscription Info
   Newspaper Issue List
 
RSS Feeds
   Articles RSS Feed
   Opinions RSS Feed
   Media RSS Feed
   Newsletter RSS Feed
   Smartphone Feed
   Podcast Feed
Radio / TV
   Decleare Your Independence
      with Ernest Hancock
   Radio / TV Program List

 
Anarchives
   Search by Keyword
   Contents Listed by Subject
   Radio / TV Show Archives
   Newsletter Archives
   News Links
   Feature Articles
   Opinion Columns
   Reference Links

 
Letters to the Editor
   List of Letters
   Write a Letter

 
Join Us
   Subscribe to Magazine
   Membership Sign-Up
   Be a Writer
   Be a Reporter
   Link to Us

 
Marketplace
   Buy Stuff – Sell Stuff

   Store on CafePress.com
More News
   Page Two
   Current News
 
Discussions
   Freedom Forum
 
Advertise
   Intro to Advertising with Us
   Magazine Advertising Rates
   Radio Advertising Rates
   Website Advertising Rates
 
Funding Center
   Support or Promote a Project
About Freedom's Phoenix
   About Us
   Contact Us
   Terms of Use
   Privacy Policy
   Writers List

 
Tutorials – Using This Site
   List of Tutorials
 
Media Resources
   News References
   Blog References
   Government References
 
  FreedomsPhoenix.com
The domain and name of this website are servicemarks of Ernest Hancock.
Website is Copyright © 2014 by Ernest Hancock.  All rights reserved worldwide.
Feature articles, columns, illustrations, and photographs are copyrighted and may not be
reproduced without the expressed permission of the credited writer, artist, or photographer.
No portion of this website, text, images, or source code may be framed on another website,
copied, reproduced, or distributed, by any means, without the written permission of
Ernest Hancock, 4886 W Port Au Prince Ln, Glendale, AZ 85306 USA.
Website Designed by
USA Web
Advertising

Phoenix, Arizona
 
Time to display page: 0.633 Seconds -- Dynamic Page

Page Views:

free web stats

Stats by StatCounter