/prəˈtɛktərɪt/ Show Spelled[pruh–tek-ter-it] –noun
1.the relation of a strong state toward a weaker state or territory that it protects and partly controls.
2.a state or territory so protected.
4.the government of a protector.
5. English History . the period (1653–59) during which Oliver and Richard Cromwell held the title of Lord Protector, sometimes extended to include the period of the restoration of the Rump Parliament (1659–60).
When the colonies that formed the united States of America declared independence from British rule, the idea they designed was really based on the concepts of a protectorate, with limited powers of authority over the many sovereign and independent states of the union. And it was not until The Constitution of the United States was signed and ratified that the definitions of the limited powers of the federal government “protectorate” were made known to all.
The limitations and reinforcements of those limitations were clearly defined without ambiguity, else there would not have been a unanimous ratification of the Constitution. Those restrictions were necessary to each state to allow them to govern as necessary for the businesses and general public of those individual states.
The purpose of the commerce clause itself was unambiguous, as it was meant to prevent one state from imposing tariffs or fees on the products of another state, and not for Congress to regulate businesses.
The word “democracy” is not found in any of the founding documents and with just cause. It was the founder’s foresight that omitted “mob rule” from the nation’s laws, separating powers so the people and the states each had a balance of representation in the federal government. The legislation of laws was thereby left up to the individual states, under the Constitution’s reservation of power to the federal government in regards to protection of borders and national defense, and also to create and regulate a currency that could not be controlled by any bank or foreign interests.
What we presently call a monetary system, based on the illegal passage of the Federal Reserve Act, is in itself a usurpation of Constitutional law, and a shirking of responsibility and duty of the Congress of the United States of America.
The elections in November, 2010 demonstrated the awakening of American patriotism, the likes of which has not been seen since the Revolution. While many Republican candidates won offices and regained a majority control over the House of Representatives, it was be no means an endorsement of the GOP party, but rather a shot across the bow of the political ship of Washington bureaucracy.
Many of these new members of the House and Senate are listening, but many others remain entrenched in party politics. The 2012 elections will make 2010 look like the “dry run” that it was, in restoring Constitutional integrity to this nation that we love.
We cannot abolish every law that is unconstitutional at once, however we can begin to dismantle those usurpations as is required to reestablish a monetary system that incorporates asset-backed currency, limits Congress to a budget that restores fiscal responsibility, and gives back the sovereign rights to the individual states and the people respectively.
In an article I read from Canadian Free Press JR Dieckmann articulates quite well what and how to accomplish the restoration of this nation. It may take decades to do what took decades to destroy, but it not only is possible and necessary, it is the duty of every true American patriot to perform.
© 2008-2016 by Fred Marsico & MKUltra