Oath Keepers vs Militias — No One Wins…

As I sit here reading the latest installment in the great “Oath Keepers vs Militias” soap opera, (available at http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/29/bundy-ranch-advisory-for-april-29-2014/ ) I simply cannot sit here and be quiet.

Lets start with the established and indisputable facts:

1) Oath Keepers leadership became observably “lukewarm” to the Bundy Ranch cause following the out-of-context repetition of Cliven Bundy’s comments — this was something that was readily observable by anyone who was paying attention to comments made by Stewart Rhodes and other Oath Keeper leadership immediately after airing of the New York Times “hit piece”.

2) Oath Keepers were the ones who publicized the “intel” regarding a drone strike supposedly being authorized by rogue AG Holder — an action which any moderately intelligent American knew would never happen. Such an action by the Obama Administration would have set off immediate and complete revolt by not just the Militia units, but by any and all “anti-government” organizations in the nation — and would have resulted in the complete destruction of American society. So, anyone with half a brain should have known at first hearing that the intel was bogus.

3) Oath Keepers chose to evacuate their forces from the Bundy Ranch based on this un-vetted, unfounded, and ludicrous “intel” without so much as a “fair thee well”. In a time of war, such an action would be considered as Cowardice and Desertion and would be un-forgivable.

4) On April 25th, Stewart Rhodes went on the air with Chuck “Smithfix” Smith in a YouTube video, entitled “Will They Drone the Bundy Ranch 42514” (Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2poTb9yBHs ) and, at the 3:45 minute mark, declared that the Oath Keepers had not left the Bundy Ranch and that, indeed, Stewart himself was still at the Ranch. This was a demonstrable and proven lie, as Oath Keeper forces had already left the Ranch — only a few individual Oath Keepers who did not agree with that order remained on site in defiance of Stewart’s orders.

5) In the blog post referenced above, the statement was made, “The militias are being unruly about it, and somewhat rude, assuming that the word “rude” includes threatening to shoot Stewart or his officers in the back “for desertion” – if you can believe that. Some of the alleged militia leaders are threatening to accost Oath Keepers’ leadership if leadership step foot on the Bundy Ranch. That is fairly rude, but that has actually been said.” — this is absolutely untrue. The YouTube video they refer to (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DdgNJbBnMk ) and is a recording of a leadership meeting between the militias to determine exactly how to react to the Oath Keepers leaving the AO in such a manner. While there were some general comments made about the proper action when confronted with desertion on the battlefield, no threats were made against either Stewart Rhodes or any other Oath Keeper member. For the writer of the Oath Keeper blog post to claim that there were does nothing but to bring himself down to the same level as the New York Times — taking statements out of context in order to “prove” his false and invalid argument.

6) In the post referenced above, the writer states, “A typical FBI psy-op would plant “leaders” in every militia they could infiltrate. What those sorts of FBI agents or surrogates do is always “handled”.” He then goes on to make some disparaging comments against Ryan Payne, one of the militia leaders, as well as making yet another claim that militia leaders threatened Oath Keeper leadership. Again, I have viewed the video in question, and I failed to hear any such threat. The thing that he should remember, though, is that the militias are not the only organizations who can be infiltrated — in fact, due to it’s primary membership composition (“Active and retired law enforcement”), I submit that such an infiltration would be much easier to accomplish against Oath Keepers. So “Pot” — stop calling the “Kettle” black.

OK — enough with the facts, which seem to be pretty one-sided when you look at them. My concern is more that the two organizations work out their differences without further public dramatics, bickering, name-calling, and back-stabbing.

You are ALL claiming to be Patriots, and have publicly expressed an interest and willingness to continue supporting the Bundy Ranch cause. And you simply cannot do that as long as you are at each others throats.

Grow up, man up, stand up, and stop this bullshit — it isn’t helping the Bundys, America, or the American people. And in my humble opinion, the side who cannot do that — and get back on mission — is the root of the problem.

Simple as that.


Connecticut – The Shredding Of Two Constitutions

1928-Germany-2013-ConnecticutIn America, there is absolutely no reason that there should have been even this many citizens complying with completely unconstitutional “gun registration”, and even less reason that the federal or state authorities should have the names and addresses of gun owners.

The Connecticut State Police apparently has a list of those who refused to register their so-called “assault weapon” with the state.  These are people who have never knowingly registered their weapons with the state and, so far as they knew, should not even be on the state’s radar — how could this happen?

This has happened because of one simple fact — the federal government requires each gun dealer to complete and submit a Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, which contains the name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law.

There is a major flaw in this practice, though, which most firearm owners do not know.

Lets examine how the federal government is authorized to collect this information in an attempt to regulate just who may or may not “legally” purchase a firearm.

constitution-we-the-people-american-01The US Constitution does indeed give Congress the power

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or  Officer thereof.” (Article 1, Section 8).

However, is regulating the ownership of firearms one of those “foregoing Powers” or “all other Powers vested by this Constitution…”?  Not according to the Constitution, which strictly defines those powers — in fact, the original Constitution is completely silent as to this “power”.  The Second Amendment was ratified later, and in fact recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a personal right that cannot be regulated by government.  And, as any first-year Constitutional student knows, if the Constitution is silent as to any “power” — then the government is NOT granted that power, and has absolutely no authority to exercise it in any way.

militia_answer_1_xlargeNow, some would ask about the Second Amendment — doesn’t it give that power to the States?

Absolutely not!  In point of fact, when read correctly (in the context in which it was originally written and intended), the Second Amendment serves as a complete and absolute bar against the States regulating the right of the People to keep and bear arms — reserving that power solely to “the People”.

So the bottom line is this:

  • The federal government has absolutely NO power to regulate the ownership of any firearm, since they were never granted this power by the Constitution;
  • The State governments have absolutely NO power to regulate the ownership of any firearm, since they were specifically PROHIBITED from exercising this power by the Second Amendment;
  • No firearms dealer in America is under any LEGAL obligation to perform any type of “background check” regarding the purchase of any firearm by any American — there is absolutely NO legal authority for requiring them to do so, since Congress was never granted the power to enact any law respecting the right to keep and bear arms.
  • No firearms dealer in America is under any LEGAL obligation to complete, submit or retain any type of documentation regarding the purchase of any firearm by any American — there is absolutely NO legal authority for requiring them to do so, since Congress was never granted the power to enact any law respecting the right to keep and bear arms.

People MUST learn exactly what powers the government has — and exercise an ACTIVE refusal to allow the governments to exercise powers that they were never granted.

Until they do, scenes like this will be repeated because the government has information which the Constitution and the Second Amendment never authorized them to collect or possess.

Muslims & The First Amendment: What Would The Founders Do?

it6010We recently had a rather spirited discussion in one of my Facebook groups regarding the subject of the First Amendment and the Muslim “religion”.  One side of the room believed that Muslims were entitled to practice their “religion” and participate in American politics and society under the First Amendment; the other side, not so much.

Now that is a very good question — would the Founders have welcomed a “religion” into this budding nation if they knew (which they did) that they were simply allowing entry to a “Trojan Horse” which would demand nothing less than total control, and devour all that they fought and died for?

muslim-warriorsThe Founders would not have favored integrating Islam into our schools, government, and other civil institutions. Far from it. In his discussion of freedom of religion in his monumental Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Father of American Jurisprudence Joseph Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to the priority of Christianity:

“[I]t is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects….”

caliphateIndeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation (1833, 44.723-726.3.3.1865-1868, emp. added).

MuslimsIslamDominateWorldWilders-sIndeed, the First Amendment was never intended to “level all religions” (and Islam can hardly be stylized “the religion of liberty”). Story further explained that

“…the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government”, (1833, 3:728, emp. added).

Radical IslamIt is imperative that we not misconstrue the Founders’ strong emphasis on religious freedom and tolerance as an indication that they viewed all religion as legitimate or conducive to the principles of the Republic. Their central concern was “disestablishment,” i.e., preventing the federal government from establishing one Christian sect as the state religion. Their idea of “freedom of religion” was first and foremost freedom to pursue the Christian religion unhindered by the federal government, and only secondarily freedom to practice non-Christian religion. This truth is verified by the discussions surrounding the wording of the First Amendment. George Mason—who has gone down in American history as the Father of the Bill of Rights—proposed the following wording:

“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

constitution-we-the-people-american-01While Mason’s proposal did not make the final cut, it nevertheless establishes the historical context of the Founders’ discussion, demonstrating that their concern was first and foremost for the free exercise of the Christian religion. Using similar terminology, Mason had previously crafted The Virginia Declaration of Rights—the very document which influenced both Thomas Jefferson’s wording of the Declaration of Independence as well as James Madison’s draft of the Bill of Rights that was added to the federal Constitution. Article XVI of The Virginia Declaration of Rights reads:

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other” (Mason, 1776, emp. added).

Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-TrialsTo the Founders, “tolerance” was not to be equated with approval or agreement, let alone encouragement that would imply an equal place should be made for non-Christian religion in government, schools, etc. The Founders were no more willing to encourage Islam than they were interested in encouraging the spread of atheism, paganism, or Native American religion. [NOTE: Atheists, though few in number at the time in America, were not allowed to serve as witnesses in court — see Story, 1851, 2:8-9; Swift, 1796, 2:238.]

GW1782For example, the Father of our country, George Washington, delivered a speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs on May 12, 1779:

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention” (15:55, emp. added).

Islam5Far from encouraging the superstitious idolatry of much of Native American religion, the Founders (including the Congress!) urged Indians to convert to Christianity. The same may be said for all other non-Christian ideologies—including the inherently godless economic philosophies of socialism, Marxism, fascism, and atheistic communism. Indeed, their words and actions denigrate such thought systems. They believed that non-Christian philosophies and religions were false and ultimately detrimental to genuine liberty.

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, articulated this point succinctly in 1788 in the debates on the wording of the Constitution:

“But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mohammedans may be admitted into offices…. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own” (Elliot, 1836, 4:194, emp. added).

Radical IslamSamuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, likewise felt confident that Muslims should not, and hopefully would not, be allowed to become mainstream in American politics and public institutions—except in only two cases:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mohammedans, pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mohammedans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves” (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added).

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_StatesConstitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight echoed the same prevailing sentiment:

“As to the subject of religion…[n]o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all…. No [Christian—DM] sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices…. I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion” (Elliot, 1836, 4:208, emp. added).

Implicit in all tus-supreme-court-1hree of these Founders’ observations is the fact that Christianity was the underlying belief system on which the Republic was poised. The Founders were unanimous in their desire that the Constitution provide no pretext for governmental interference in the free exercise of the Christian religion by the citizenry. So the only way that atheism or Islam could ever make headway in America’s social and civil institutions is if the people themselves abandon their Christian values.

Tragically, their words were prophetic.