Sic semper tyrannis!

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_StatesOur Founding Fathers were well educated men, but they were also a pragmatic group of individuals who were forward-thinking enough to realize that there could come a time when other men might corrupt the wonderful contract they drew up, called the Constitution.  Unlike us, who have known nothing except the present shape and form of our federal and state governments, which in no way resemble that which the Founders knew — our Founding Fathers lived the tumultuous times of their era, and were products of it with a full and abiding knowledge of the perfidies of man.

220px-Patrick_Henry_RothermelThe men who drew up and signed the Constitution, who put this great nation into motion, intended fully that — should their fears of usurpation and corruption become our worst nightmare — we should have an avenue to negate any breach of that wonderful contract.  For anyone to attempt to advance any contrary claim is simply a lie, demonstrating that they have no inkling of the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Thomas-Jefferson-9353715-1-402“When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the State, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

The time has come.

congressThe majority of both houses of Congress no longer operate with the desires, well-being or consent of those whom they govern in mind; they have demonstrated amply that they exist as representatives of nothing more than their own greed and self-interests, and care more for their own aggrandizement than for the economic and physical welfare of the People.  Their actions over the course of the past 100 years or more have demonstrated a desire and intention to reduce the People — their nominal masters under the terms of the Constitution — to the status of subjects, to be ruled as they see fit.

unemployment-87e55cf1b3db5026Our nation is now on the brink of bankruptcy, our substance eaten out by the innumerable agents and offices erected by this government out of powers that were never put into its hands.  Indeed, the present government has demonstrated amply that it is now a clear and present danger to the State in that it now believes that it exists for the sole purpose of its own enrichment; it clearly operates in furtherance of the degradation of the People.

policestateWe now find ourselves in the precise position hypothesized by the Founders all those years ago and, like them, we must now make the unpopular decision to participate in “an exercise of the power of dissolution” before the present government can complete the actions it is well on the way to completing.

The time has come.

ohio_militiaThere are no further options for peaceful dissent, because the present rulers of this nation are no longer listening and no longer fear the People as they should.  We now have no choice but to, as the Founding Fathers intended, avail ourselves of the greatest and most final of rights — the right to abolish our present form of government, and establish new guards for our future in such form as those which originally gave our nation the liberty to excel among all of the nations of the world.

Sic semper tyrannis!


We Have Now Reached The Inevitable…

supreme_court_buildingThe Supreme Court refused today to schedule oral arguments in Noonan, et al v. Bowden — the Obama ballot eligibility challenge; apparently, according to hard proof offered by attorney Orly Taitz, the Supreme Court’s very own Law Clerks sabotaged the presentation of this case at the scheduling conference by failing to distribute the original petition and supplemental briefs properly, causing the Justices to refuse to consider scheduling the case at all.

They say that you learn something new every day… and I have learned today, while keeping tabs on the case, that the Supreme Court is completely irrelevant now, and is no longer an effective “check” in the great scheme of “checks and balances” conceived by our Founding Fathers.

487094_438112242893151_442673287_nObama doesn’t need to concern himself any longer with how the Justices will rule on any specific issue, since he has the Law Clerks in his pocket. It is the Law Clerks who actually determine what the Supreme Court accepts — and even what documents that Justices themselves see.

So, from this day forward, if Obama does not want a particular issue to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court — he just lets the Court’s Law Clerks know that the issue is “off limits”, and the case will never make it before the actual Court itself.

Friends, I am sure that this is NOT how the “Separation of Powers” called for in the Constitution is supposed to work. And I am absolutely sure that our Founders are spinning in their graves like a whirling dervish!

I am now convinced that America is doomed to Civil War.

The Executive branch of our government now rules by fiat, with no concern for the sanctity of the Constitution or the rights of us, the citizens of the several States, and is not concerned with being upbraided by the other two branches of government;

US_Congress_02The Legislative branch of our government no longer listens to or consults the people who sent them to Washington to represent them, and, just like the Executive branch, is no longer concerned that the Judicial branch will stop any plans or ill intentions they have in store for America;

Now that we have apparently been subjected to a coup by the Law Clerks of the Judicial branch, all but the most influential and wealthy Americans have completely lost the ability to effectively seek redress of grievances in a fair and impartial legal forum.

american-revolutionThis is not the America which my ancestors fought and died to establish and preserve, and speaking for myself, this present government has now lost the consent of the governed and is illegitimate; it no longer has sanction by the Constitution, and has fatally violated that founding contract.

Ladies and gentlemen — the Constitution can be saved, but I am afraid that it can no longer be rescued without the necessity of completely tearing the existing farce of an institution out by the roots.

599243_265727886867335_1759798258_nAnd that will be a long, expensive — and very bloody — task for the Patriots of America. It is the only viable alternative left, though — the present government has made peaceful resolution completely impossible.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”…

I believe that we have now reached the inevitable…

Gun Control Really Is Never Going To Be Possible

This is a re-post of an article posted at the American Live Wire.  This article is so good, and so pertinent to the struggle going on today, I felt that it was imperative that these words and facts be preserved here as well.

The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail

Those of you circulating information about the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 (the Dick Act), PLEASE cease and desist.  You know, the email and Facebook snippet that’s being touted as the Holy Grail of Second Amendment rights, and includes this ridiculous statement: “The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” (Boldface added for emphasis)?

One Congress can ABSOLUTELY repeal the acts of any previous Congress.  It’s as simple as that. So please, stop spreading this drivel.  At best it’s disinformation, at worst it’s ludicrous. And I’m not even going to address the if-I-write-it-they-will-come lunacy of including “bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

The writers of the Constitution chose their words carefully. Any law which in any way hinders the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is illegal. ALL gun control laws are illegal. A law creating multiple definitions and divisions of “militia” does not override the Second Amendment. The most amusing part is: The Dick Act has been superseded several times.  It’s ALREADY been “repealed.” And the superseding acts don’t override the Second Amendment either.

Advocates for the Second Amendment Are Grasping at Straws

It appears that many Americans are stretching the limits of the believable, looking for a magical mantra that will not only keep the Federal government away from our guns and keep the ATF from busting in our doors, but to also miraculously change the minds of those who are supporting stricter gun control.  So many supporters of the Second Amendment have seem to forgotten that the Constitution of the United States is the law of this land, and no one – not the President, not Congress, not the FBI or ATF or any of the alphabet gangs -is above it.  So many supporters of gun control have forgotten the same thing.  It’s not surprising, actually – Americans have given up so many of their fundamental rights in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of safety and security that most people have stopped paying attention to the egregious slashing of the Bill of Rights happening right under their noses.  Our government has become a self-perpetuating entity, an entity that has convinced America that we cannot live without it.

The fact is, the government cannot live without us.   We’ve allowed our politicians to manipulate us into believing “popular opinion” and “majority” mean something in this country.  Sorry, they don’t.  The Constitution (and the amendments thereof) is the law, and it directs, grants, and limits each and every power and responsibility of the Federal government.  And it is our right, duty, and obligation to ensure they fulfill those duties and responsibilities – with our unalienable rights enjoying the utmost care and respect.

The JFPO published an article stating,” That each person is responsible for his own defense against criminals has long been the law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court implied this in 1856, when it decided South v. Maryland, and held that a sheriff did not have a duty to protect an ordinary person, but only had a duty generally to uphold the Law. The Court indirectly re-affirmed Americans’ private and personal right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense purposes. More recently, a U.S.Appellate Court reaffirmed that the government has no duty to protect the average person. In 1939 [with regard to United States v. Miller, the only U.S. Supreme Court case reviewing the Second Amendment in the last 70 years] the Supreme Court was not asked to recognize that Americans never have had a right to protection by the government, and so have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Because the average person’s right to self-defense – and to the possession of firearms for that purpose – has not been explicitly recognized,criminals’ abuse of firearms has been used to justify sharp curtailments of law-abiding persons’ civil right to be armed. Laws concerning the ownership of firearms for personal defense need to be adjusted to recognize that South v. Maryland implicitly re-affirmed Americans’ right to own firearms for personal defense. As a result, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot lawfully be a pretext to deprive the law-abiding of those firearms (boldface added). 

In other words, we don’t need to find the Holy Grail of sensibility to resist further infringement.  We are holding it in our hands.

That said, let’s back up a bit.

A Historical Perspective

From our Declaration of Independence, In Congress on July 4, 1776:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Firstly, this is irrefutable proof that our Founding Fathers recognized that each of us has “certain unalienable rights,” rights endowed by the “Creator.”  Doesn’t matter if you believe in God, the Declaration of Independence rests   on the premise that God believes in you.

Secondly, our Founding Fathers recognized that a government can become tyrannical only if the people allow it.  They provided for a government whose sole power lies in the “consent of the governed,” the governed having the right – and obligation – to “alter or abolish” any government or form of government that poses a threat to the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thirdly, our Founding Fathers acknowledged a very important and telling human trait – a trait that should be easily recognizable to anyone currently in America:  ”…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves…“. In other words, people will take the devil they know over the devil they don’t any day of the week, even if the devil they know is abusive, tyrannical, repressive, and wholly self-perpetuating.

11 years later, the Federal Convention met to revise the Articles of Confederation.  After several months of discussion and debate, it became clear that amendment to the Articles would not be sufficient, and an entirely new frame of government would be drafted instead.  Throughout the summer, closed sessions were held to draft a comprehensive governing document… and on September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was ratified and established.

Stay with me while we examine a bit more closely what our Founding Fathers were doing with this reframed document:

Article I., Section I.  ” All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  This means that only Congress can enact legislation.  The ATF can’t just make up laws and regulations.  Neither can the President.

Article II, in entirety, states the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military and of “the Militia of the several states” if that Militia is called into action in the service of the United States.  The President has the power to require any Executive Department to report with regard to the duties of their Department, and he has the power to grant reprieve/pardon for offenses against the United States (except for impeachment, obviously).  He can make treaties with the consent of Congress, he can appoint United States Officers and Supreme Court judges, and “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  In other words, the President is tasked with being the guardian of the Constitution, and ensuring that the law of the land is supreme.  But the President does not have the power to make law.

Further, nowhere in the Articles of the Constitution does it grant power to any branch of the Federal government to restrict, regulate, suppress, or otherwise impose upon the tools of “the militia.”  The powers of Congress, the President, or any Executive department do not extend to regulation of firearms and ammunition (among other things). Period.

Now, moving on to the Bill of Rights, we see the Second Amendment in all of its glorious simplicity:  ”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  ”Infringed” means “violated.”  Synonyms of “infringe” include “breach,” “contravene,” “encroach,” “impose,” “intrude,” “invade,” “meddle,” “steal,” “offend,” “transgress,” and “trespass.”  Replace “infringed” with any one of these synonyms and it should be obvious that the Framers were really serious about the right of American citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their liberty – and about their roles as Citizen Soldiers.  This right – this unalienable right – shall not be infringed.

In a 1986 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, David T. Hardy wrote, “The closing phrase of the Second Amendment favors neither the collective nor the individual right interpretation, but its absolute language suggests that the Framers intended to recognize the right in the strongest possible language. Early courts and commentators were in accord with this view, stressing that “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.” Some early courts and commentators even suggested that the choice of the term “shall not be infringed” rather than “Congress shall make no law” (as is used in the First Amendment) indicated a desire to prohibit such action by states as well as the federal government.

From The Oxford Companion to US Military History: The concept of the “citizen-soldier” is based on the notion that citizens have the obligation to arm themselves to defend their communities or nations from foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants. Usually associated with republicanism, it is best understood in opposition to other forms of military organization, particularly the practices of hiring mercenaries or establishing professional standing armies of the state. In the latter two cases, soldiers and officers are isolated from society and can represent a praetorian challenge to legitimate rule. By contrast, the citizen-soldiers embody the will of the people directly because they are the people. They have a stake in preserving liberties and rights in a society, hence supplying a check on tyranny and corruption of governments.

Richard W. Stevens noted, “Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm ‘the people.’”

Further, the United States, as an entity, is a product of the Constitution. When the government punishes a American citizen abroad, the protection of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not stripped from the individual because the individual is in another land. All agreements made with a foreign nation are restricted by the Constitution to the degree of power they confer on any branch of the government.  No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.

So What Now?

As the only Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment was seventy years ago, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Miller, which is essentially a narrow form of the individual rights approach to interpretation of the Second Amendment. The decision shares at least most of the amendment’s historical virtues, but is incapable of dealing with changes in infantry weapons technology that have occurred in the 20th century. Under that approach, legislatures are prohibited from restricting the possession of modern weapons by private citizens because these weapons can be used for military purposes.

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in United States vs. Miller was a broad-based general ruling which gave the government license to restrict Americans’ civil right to be armed should also accept the Court’s logic, and consider plainly unconstitutional bans on: new manufacture of fully-automatic and semi-automatic military-type firearms, the new manufacture of detachable ammunition holders (magazines), especially those types of magazines which are standard U.S. military issue, and possession and sale of armor-piercing ammunition. These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing of such firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.

And those who think, like I do, that the Supreme Court made a narrow decision in 1939, which affected only short-barreled shotguns, should think the above bans are plainly unconstitutional, and so in need of Supreme Court review.

Should we be given such a golden opportunity, it must be established by powerful documentary and expert evidence beyond any doubt that the use by U.S. military and militia forces of certain classes of firearms, ammunition, and magazines – which have been banned from civilian possession– makes such bans unconstitutional.  Additionally, South v. Maryland (1856) and a large body of later Federal and State jurisprudence , by effectively relieving the government of a duty to protect the average person,  implicitly recognizes the civil right of the law-abiding person to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

Thus, if the Holy Grail of gun control is what you seek, leave all reference to the dead-and-gone Dick Act and find it in this statement supported by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and existing case law:   If, according to established precedent, the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed for self-defense, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot be used to justify depriving the law-abiding of those firearms.