“Stupid is as stupid does.”

September 11, 2020 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founders, Judicial, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

The idiom, “Stupid is as stupid does”, popularized by the film “Forrest Gump” indicates one’s level of ignorance or stupidity. Some definitions grant that it could also indicate one’s level of intelligence but given the fact that the word stupid is emphasized, I am going with the negative.

This is a constitutional Republic as I have noted many times in the past. Yet, we allow the people we send to congress, other public officials, and the media to continually label our nation  a democracy. It cannot be a simple mistake because the U.S. Constitution commands that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.

So, is the constant rhetoric about democracy a mistake, a clear violation of the law, or insidious propaganda? Vladimir Lennon is credited with saying that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. That particular mode of propaganda has been used quite effectively over the years. For anyone paying attention, we are deluged with it from the same political bent from which it arose. That is to say that it is a tool of the Marxist, elitist, oligarchs, and mainstream media who are all part of the cabal to overthrow liberty. If you question this, refer to the title because I am almost certain that others besides myself see the same picture.  

The Founders of this nation were wary and skeptical as to whether we could keep a Republic. They were students of history, and as Patrick Henry conceded, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”. Given the history gone by, and the character of man, both good and evil, Thomas Jefferson lamented “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”.

It is easy enough to look back at history, and second guess those who lived in some of the most interesting times. We can accuse those who lived in a moment of great importance and question their actions. We can celebrate those who fought for freedom, denounce the evil doers for their wrongs, and learn from the errors that all of mankind makes. Abandoning our history is akin to the ignoring that “one lamp by which [our] feet are guided”. That certainly would not be wise for within the dusty pages that comprise our past are the building blocks for a better future.

As astute as the Founders were, they knew that liberty shines brightest when the people, who are for the most part peaceful, have the means to maintain their freedom without the corrosive interference of bureaucrats. Evil doers abound, the murderers, the thieves, the greedy, the power hungry, and the genocidal maniacs do not disappear from the pages of news simply because the law exists to prevent their ambitions. With that in mind, the Framers recognized for the people the tool that they deemed “necessary to the security of a free State”.

It would be simple enough to read the law of the land, and the papers written by those who explained, in detail, what the words meant, and the recognition of the pitfalls that might ensue. Given the predilection of man to be swayed, particularly in today’s world, by silver-tongued viper’s claiming the title of expert, I have little hope that reading every word in the Constitution, and comprehending that it, not only must be interpreted by what the Framers understood, it must be enforced as detailed.

I took to writing these articles with the hope that, in their short version, people would take the few minutes needed to read, and gain some understanding of our law. I was prompted to this when I made a statement, years back when debating the application and enforcement of the income tax, that the American people are stupid. I made the claim because the facts are spelled out, and those facts of law are not the same as policies enforced by bureaucrats, and dishonest judges. I was immediately rebutted by another stating that the American people aren’t stupid, they just don’t know. I handed him a stack of papers proving the law as I had claimed, to which he responded, “I haven’t got time to read that shit”, thus validating Forrest Gump’s now famous idiom.

I spend my days reading articles, listening to the opinions of others, and trying to make heads or tails of today’s issues. Sometimes, I am asked to comment on a particularly high-profile case. In many cases, I find that the interpretation does not square with what was opined, ruled, or decreed. I remember the words Paul Simon wrote in “The Boxer”; “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest…”

How poignant when we consider the rule of law, and the Forty-Two Hundred words of the U.S. Constitution. The document requires that every public official of the federal and State governments, be they elected or appointed, swear an oath to protect and defend. In those Forty-Two Hundred words are delegated authorities, and restrictions that “We the People” have made law. Each word must be given its due force as the Constitution must be read in its entirety in order that the rule of law “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”, be interpreted by “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted it underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”.

“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning”, and what could be more important to “the Supreme Power *** of the people” than the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”?

John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise “To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man.”

Locke went on to write, “And that all Men may be restrained from invading others Rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the Law of Nature be observed, which willeth the Peace and Preservation of all Mankind, the Execution of the Law of Nature is in that State, put into every Mans hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that Law to such a Degree, as may hinder its Violation. For the Law of Nature would, as all other Laws that concern Men in this World, be in vain, if there were no body that in the State of Nature, had a Power to Execute that Law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders, and if anyone in the State of Nature may punish another, for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that State of perfect Equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one, over another, what any may do in Prosecution of that Law, everyone must needs have a Right to do.”

The Founders put Locke’s assertion’s to good use when they secured, in the Bill of Rights, a Grand Jury, a Jury, and in the original Constitution, the means by which we may “execute the Laws of the Union…” in the hands of “the Militia of the several States”.

Considering Locke’s words, and combining them with that of the Supreme Court, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts”, we are given a clearer picture, by which this Republic was to operate.

I will, for the hundredth time, repeat the lawful fact that Militia was not voluntary, or that not everyone was required to serve as certain trades and persons were exempt by statute. I can state what is clearly in the acts promulgated by congress’s delegated authority “To provide for calling forth the Militia *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia *** reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. I can also bemoan the misfortune that in today’s world of college educated people, the authority and powers specified within the Constitution are interpreted to mean something other than what they clearly state. In essence, a deliberate corruption of the rule of law designed to diminish the sovereignty of the people.

Locke explains, our Constitution and Bill of Rights codify it as a matter of law, and then our Supreme Court acknowledges the fact of popular sovereignty. In the realm of those opposed to the ultimate authority of the people, having both the ability to be armed and acting with all the power of law enforcement, those words in the Constitution are dismissed as being antiquated and never meaning what the Framers clearly understood and experienced. What is beyond my comprehension is the rejection, often irrational denial that the clauses in the Constitution even exist. It is beyond the pale, and it is particularly inexplicable when it is viewed in the context of those who claim to be patriotic, and  supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

Pro-2^nd, patriot, or whatever else you prefer to label yourself, it is a sham, in some cases a scam, and in others it represents the same treacherous acts of the likes of Ephialtes of Trachis. The path around the forces of good is marked by the “individual rights” theory, the disregard for the rule of law, the warnings and in fact the laws set out by those who handed us the care and responsibility to protect and defend our rights, and thereby this Republic.

So, how are we to “consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government” in light of the fact that we’ve abandoned the precepts of our nation, and decry the very meaning of our rights as “unalienable”?

We should consider the fact that our Declaration uses the word “unalienable”, which meant inherent to all people and could not be transferred, even by those having the rights, rather than inalienable meaning that rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

There is a large portion of the population who would not only surrender their own rights, but demand that government take the rights of others. Indeed, there are people in this world who are thankful that their nation does not have a Bill of Rights so that their government can restrain and deny certain rights opposed to their mindset. As for those people who would do so, or those who simply follow, often unconstitutional acts of both the legislature and judiciary, I remind you that my rights are unalienable. I, for one, recognize the danger from within and from those external forces bent on destroying our form of government as a war that touches at the core of freedom.

In today’s world of political intrigue and deception, the only thing we can count on is our own ability to find the truth. If we care not for the truth, or find whatever excuse to deny it, we have only ourselves to blame for the current state of affairs. For the most part, the Framers engineered a government that was to be subject to the will of the people, not the other way around. This must be the winning strategy for the war, in which we are now engaged. Throw off the veil that the court, and those who are sworn to the Bar, are our allies.

Engage the law, not the rhetoric or policy. What does “justifiable needs” mean in terms of every able-bodied man required to “bear[] arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”? Does it mean that those fitting the legal definition are to keep and bear those arms most suitable to the duty laid out at Article I, § 8, Cl. 15? Does it mean that the State may dictate, with specious arguments, how we are to “suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”?

Make no mistake about it, there are those in our own government, on the streets, and foreign interests that are insurrectionists. They are invading our lands by means of illegal immigration and “new world order” dictates designed to “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws”.

Putting this all into context, we, our freedom, and our future are under attack from multiple enemies. The saddest part of the battle is that we willingly aide-and-abet the foe.

This is a nation of sovereigns with the power to perform the lawful authority “necessary to the security of a free State”. Instead of reclaiming the Grand Jury, the Jury, and revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” we succumb to the fallacy of government with unlimited authority that is violating our rights. The State is contravening our rights because they have re-educated the people on the proper role of government. Most expect security from their government when that duty is clearly in our hands by nature’s law and codified in our own original rules. The failure to protect our rights in the manner the original Constitution commands gives public officials all they need to shackle us with rules and regulations beyond their authority.

In the case of our most potent measure of authority, we rely on the false narrative handed down in Heller v DC. That case, while lauded by the second amendment community as some grand victory, fails on the fact that it does not speak to the core of the amendment, while inferring influence beyond the States authority.

Heller contradicts, through policy, the law as explained in Miller as to the core of the second that “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [Militia]”. If you take Heller as guaranteeing the “individual right” you have also missed the majority opinion, in which it is noted that “How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say…” How does this reconcile with the court’s previous decision in Miranda, in which it was ruled “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”?

In this day and age of diminishing rights, calls for the disarmament of the American people, and a centralized authority for the control of arms under the U.N., we continue down a path that will lead us all to subjugation. We hand our cases to lawyers sworn at the Bar to abide by the dictates of black robed tyrants rather than to fight for the most effective, but endangered right of all.

Our Duty to Keep and Bear Arms is not a frivolous exercise in maybe I will or maybe I will not. The Founders understood the need for a branch of government controlled by “We the People” in order to lawfully hold back the arms of a tyrant borne by willing followers.

The pages of historical and legal records are filled with statutes defining the training, the arming, and function of Militia. When debating the Constitution, there was no question as to the meaning of “the Militia of the several States”. It is the aspect of our law that the Framers deemed “necessary”. Yet, today, the so-called second amendment community and their legal advisors deny the institution and replace it with arguments based on activities that promote the “we must do something” response from State actors, bureaucrats, and soccer mom’s.

The law is as it states, and as it was practiced for decades before and after the ratification of the Constitution. “We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves” before the bureaucrat, the legislator, and the jurist. Rather than enforcing the law as commanded by those screaming from our past we beg for mercy. We have acted with the most humble and fearful response while the State laughs at our foolish retort.

For the sake of convenience, we have allowed for, and indeed fostered our own demise. We have painted banners to the heroics of those who assist in mock trials so that they may claim some form of resistance. When our adversaries deceive, connive, and plot the end of liberty, we persist in the forging of our own chains.

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before the fall.” In the fight to protect and defend our freedoms, we have used whatever method possible to ensure our defeat while patting ourselves on the back for a job well-done by blatantly disparaging the rule of law. Consider the fact that the Constitution commands a duty of all able-bodied men. Then take into account the fact that no one, not man nor woman is entitled to the right to keep and bear arms when we reject the duty to maintain that right. To that end I can only reiterate, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

No Comments »

Law Enforcement And The Constitution

September 1, 2020 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Judicial, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

From time to time I will pass along, to those on my e-mail list, an article that I have read. Recently, I circulated an article titled “Election 2020: The Worst Case Scenario Is The Most Likely One”. At the end of the article, the author Brandon Smith suggested “community based security” as a means of solving some of the current issues rather than accepting what might come about by embracing more government intervention. I commented to the author that “community based security” is a requirement in that the Constitution commands that we maintain “A well regulated Militia” in order to fulfill the duties imposed at Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and Article II, § 2, Cl.1.

In the e-mail I sent to my list, I wrote “I’ve taken the time to e-mail Mr. Smith inferring that his idea is another term for Militia, and how the Constitution commands it”. Inferring, as the dictionary defines it means “to derive as a conclusion from facts”, “to involve as a normal outcome of thought”, or simply to “indicate”. Why would I make that inference? The Militia Act of 1792 reads as follows, “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment…” The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed by the Act of 1795 and revised in 1861 to include all able-bodied males.

I have mentioned in at least a few articles that on April 19, 1775, Captain John Parker and 70 Militia mustered on the Green in Lexington as a show against the force of 700 Regulars that Thomas Gage had sent to disarm the militia. That company of Militia did not just appear on the Green. They were required by law to be organized, armed, and trained to fulfill the duty of “citizen soldier” under British law. In the case of Parker’s company, they stood upon the principle that their duty was to stand up against an unlawful act. This belief can be traced back hundreds of years in English law. Instead of “redress of grievance”, the colonists received threats and punishment for their complaints to the crown and parliament. Contrary to the rights secured in the English Bill of Rights, and previous incarnations of guarantees, British regulars marched to disarm the lawful Militia.

As the record shows, someone fired a shot on that day that later became known as “the shot heard round the World”. It was the beginning of a nation conceived in liberty, and the long and arduous path that has brought us to protests, riots, looting, destruction, and the death of many at the hands of those who wish to destroy this nation.

We have been on the path of a fledgling nation to a modern day superpower. Yes, we have made many mistakes along the way, but we strove to correct them. Today we are in the midst of, what I believe is the definition of a civil war. The power structure is not clear, and there are factions that wish to tear us apart. They are doing so by threats and violence. Amid this they are calling for the abolishment of police.

There is no need to dissolve, limit, or defund police departments around the country. What needs to be done seems simple enough to me. By the historical record, “a member of a group of men pledged to take up arms at a minute’s notice during and immediately before the American Revolution”, our police can be redefined and restructured to be our modern Minutemen.

What is the difference between a policeman and a minuteman? While minutemen were called to duty, police are there patrolling the streets on a constant basis. Police are armed and organized under the command of the local government. Minutemen were able-bodied men of the community, armed, and trained. In essence, a “community based security” operating under the militia statutes enacted by the State government. Police, on the other hand operate by the edicts of, far too often, unconstitutional acts of the local and State governments.

Let us take some quite simple steps before we place the brave men and women who serve every day into the lawful role “to execute the Laws of the Union”. We admit to ourselves that our idea of “doing something” is akin to doing nothing at all, or even worse when we are doing the wrong thing. I received a question from a so-called pro-2^nd group, and for those insulted by the term so-called, the dictionary defines it as “used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified”. Having settled that misconception, I move on to more pertinent issues.

The question referred to the way those who argue for the right to keep and bear arms using the “individual right” theory are wrong because it is not being done by my method. To which I reply, good grief!, why would you do it my way? I simply ask that you do it the way the Framers of the Constitution, those men and women who sacrificed, wrote it into law.

Granted, I have taken the time, several years, to read through the history, the acts, and the laws surrounding the foundation of the second amendment while those who seem to attract the largest following appear not to have made the effort. Disturbingly, they will completely disparage the very provisions in the Constitution that are designed to protect the right, in fact all our rights. Even more disconcerting is that, almost the entirety of the pro-2^nd community follows the legal profession, and by that I mean attorney’s and the bad case law they continually promote.

In the recent DUNCAN v BECERRA, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01017- BEN-JLB, the majority opined that “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self defense”. Needless to say, the pro-2^nd community is all-a-tither with this decision. However, while the decision reverses bad law, it does not prevent the State of California from making slight changes in order to resolve the courts decision. There is also the concern I have for the Ninth mentioning Kolbe v Hogan, and in its Conclusion writing for no apparent reason other than to signal that they might be open to a complete ban on certain weapons; “We do not opine on bans on so-called “assault weapons,” nor do we speculate about the legitimacy of bans on magazines holding far larger quantities of ammunition”. It is, also, important to realize that the court is avoiding the true core of the Second, but they are leaving open the question of whether they have actually struck down California’s ban.

Not only is Duncan fundamentally wrong because the arguments and opinions are based on policy, rather than law, they violate a tenet of the rules of court doctrine; it is not within the authority of the lower courts to tell the Supreme Court that it is wrong. In United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), Justice McReynolds stated, in no uncertain terms, that ““The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.”

When the Supreme Court rules that “It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view”, it is law. When the lower court disregards or opines in contradiction to the High Courts decision it is not law, and in the case of Duncan, as has been so many Second Amendment cases, it is policy set against our unalienable rights. By this line of argument, based in whim, fancy, fears, and agenda the court may note “We also want to make clear that our decision today does not address issues not before us.” What issues? Right off the top of my head, the fact that “A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State…” What is the militia as George Mason asked, “the whole people”. That is to say, by law, “each and every [] able-bodied [] male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years”.

I will say this again because it does not appear to penetrate to those who consider themselves patriots. Militia was not voluntary. Able bodied men were enrolled “by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside…” You participated as a matter of law, not because you were so inclined to do so. Your enrollment as an able-bodied man of the prescribed age was mandatory but allow me to note that others who wished to partake in the training, and the all-important defense of community and country were not barred. As a matter of fact, during the revolution, there were women who took up arms and acted as Militia for their community.

So, this brings us to our police, and the realization that Militia could be voluntary today. Obviously, with the size of our population, I surmise that if a governor declared he was revitalizing the constitutional Militia in his State, he would have sufficient volunteers to create a functional, and viable militia. Putting that aside, we already have those men and women who have chosen to be ready at a moment’s notice to go in harms-way.

Those acting as police fulfill a role that most Americans would not consider. Who would want to put themselves and their families in a position to face the ire of such groups as ANTIFA, and BLM? Particularly today when public officials are throwing police under the bus for political gain.

Without delving into the numbers, it would appear that the amount of those leaving the police force are up while recruitment is down. I would also venture to say that in a profession that has a high rate of suicides to start that number has also risen. Placing the men and women who have decided to serve under the banner of the constitutional Militia could turn this miasma around. It may eventually save the Republic.

Why is this so important that it needs to be discussed? Let us first examine the role of police. We take a young man or woman, give them minimal training, and turn them out onto the streets to protect us from, in many cases, hardened criminals who have no regard for life. The worst part of their job is that they are fundamentally ignorant of the rule of law, and how they are being used in direct opposition to what the Founders intended.

Police departments are a concept of larger cities. Those bureaus were not always formed with the best of intentions. Certainly, the Boss Tweed era should bring about questions from anyone who has studied American history.

This is a nation of popular sovereignty, and as a sovereign you and I are endowed with all the privileges of a sovereign. The sovereigns right to self-defense is universal. Its right to prosecute another for an injury, and the right to seek recompense when a grand jury, and jury have properly adjudicated the issue is paramount. This was done within a society that was averse to government intervention and the heavy hand of political hacks and a corrupt judiciary.

In days gone by, a sheriff with a warrant to issue knew that he was on shaky ground, and that caution and diplomacy were the proper course. Today, we have placed servants of the people above our own sovereignty, and so police departments execute laws that would have made the Militia take up arms and storm the State House.

The role of policing is a bastardization of the duty of the State to protect the rights of their citizens, but certainly not to continually pass laws that encumber every aspect of life. The actions of government have become so destructive of freedom that the idea of liberty has become more of a pipe dream than reality. We place our police in the middle of this onslaught on freedom, and then when they error, their heads are placed on the chopping block to defer the guilt that rightfully belongs to bureaucrats and our elected representatives.

To the point of this article, let us place the police in a constitutional role that was clearly debated and ratified by the Framers; “to execute the Laws of the Union…”

First and foremost is the need for the American people, the so-called pro-2^nd community, and those considering themselves patriots to throw off the yoke of ignorance and adhere to “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”. We cannot reclaim our sovereignty and our nation if we choose to interpret the Constitution to our convenience, or, in this case, our disadvantage. All will be lost.

I am not going to rehash the fact that the history and law surrounding the militia has been completely distorted by both sides of the argument around the second amendment. Militia is a force of law manned by “We the People”. It was never voluntary. The statutes tell us the facts of law so it should not be disputed. Rather, it should be embraced by those who wish to reclaim the rule of law.

A revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” would put to rest many of the arguments and demands that those working to disarm the American people have shouted for years.

Militia is essentially “community based security” with all the underlying authority of the Constitution. Importantly, while the militia is a State agency, it is commanded, operated, and staffed by you, your neighbor, your family, and friends. It is security provided by those with whom you would interact on both a professional and neighborly posture. It is not crewed by those who are unfamiliar to you, operating by rules that may or may not be lawful, and acting under the direction of faceless bureaucrats and suspect representatives of the people.

Most people do not want to have anything to do with the protection of community other than calling 911 or screaming that something must be done. On the other hand, we have a ready to go group of Minutemen in the agencies that government officials have created out of “whole cloth” who are willing to fulfill the constitutional duties. These men and women have some training, but they are reliant on the false paradigm created by corrupt public officials. While they take an oath to the Constitution, they perform in a manner that is often criminal. Our first responsibility will be to reclaim the rule of law by pointing to the fact that “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425

I have dealt with police, and they believe that just because some elected official, or even a judge abides by some act, that the law in question is valid. In fact, the issue of the role of government and delegated authority must, must be examined. The extent of the lawful actions of the branches of government need to be taught from the ground up. Every school child should know that in this nation “while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” So, while the ignorant media, public officials, and the legal profession laughs at the sovereign citizen, it is none-the-less a fact of our law. “We the People” are the sovereigns in this nation, and the ultimate arbiters of the law.

Our second responsibility will be to reclaim so-called law enforcement by taking it from the control of bureaucrats and placing it where it belongs, under the command of the militia, operating by the statutes and the Constitution. One point here is that we will be taking these men and women from their paid profession so they must continue to be paid. This can easily be maintained as the money comes from taxes, and the community already pays the taxes. This aspect could also give the community a better handle on money spent or squandered by bureaucrats.

There will be several other tasks, responsibilities, and benefits to the fact that law enforcement will be returned to the people and taken from the likes of those who believe themselves to be superior to me and you. We will be conducting background checks as a matter of course as the community comes together. Training will be for all, so, that when a weapon is purchased we can feel secure in the fact that we personally know the individual and are comfortable with the knowledge that firearms are not going to end up in the hands of those who should not have access.

Much of what needs to be done can be handled by those men and women already trained to the required tasks. They will also rest easier knowing that in a crisis they are not out there on their own. Those of their friends and family who have been qualified in whatever assignment the emergency calls for will be there to assist. Instead of who might be on duty at the time, your neighbors can be counted on to aid. Properly organized, at least some of the emergencies law enforcement face today will be less likely to occur. 

This can all work to our advantage, or we can simply languish in a deteriorating society led by criminals who now take a knee to Marxists determined to overthrow our form of government. We must start somewhere before we lose it all. We must make the commitment to save our Republic. What better way than to take the men and women already on the front lines, ask them to take up the historic role of Minutemen, adhere to constitutional commands and work hand in hand with their neighbors to make a better, safer, and more secure nation?

No Comments »

This Fourth of July – 2020

June 30, 2020 | Civil Liberties, General

by Nicholas Testaccio

The most practical way of preparing for our future is to honor our history. How else can we learn from our mistakes, build on our achievements, and pave the way for a better tomorrow?

There is a contingent of society that is destroying the historical record for some injustice that none of us alive have suffered or committed. We are separated by generations from those who laid out the foundation of this nation with triumph and disaster. By trial and error our Forefathers engineered prosperity for any and all who wish to succeed.

It would appear that we are on the path to a civil war. Not one in which one contingent takes up arms against another. Our cities are being burnt while lawlessness is condoned by politicians. This war will be one of genocide. One in which the looters and rioters are told that they may run roughshod over a peaceful, docile, ambivalent populous that does not seem to understand what is taking place right before their eyes.

While most sleep, and hope for the best, there are those who plot, plan, and encourage mayhem. Some of those planners are the people we elect to our legislatures, or appoint to our courts. They take advantage of any situation that they might escalate far beyond its beginning, and then corrupt or distort the facts to foment anger and hatred. Their goal is the takeover of America either by stealth or violent bloodshed. We are being pushed to an actual civil war.  

No, ladies and gentlemen, this will not be a war where competent leaders march trained able-bodied men shouldering their “weapons of war” to engage the enemy. This civil war will be akin to some of the horrific genocides of the Twentieth Century. What should come to mind is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands who had been disarmed by government forces.

For about One Hundred days in 1994 it is estimated that as many as One Million Rwandan’s were killed. The Hutu’s, armed with anything they could use, hunted down and slaughtered thousands of Tutsis every day. It all began by the death of a man, a Hutu, the then president of the country. No one knows who did it, but it was the catalyst for a confrontation that had been brewing for decades between two different groups.

Over several decades, here in America, one faction has used everything in its power to increase racial tension. Not unlike Rwanda, one group is seen as “privileged” while the other group as second class. One man was killed by police on a street in Minneapolis. From there rioting and looting ensued across the nation. Several people have been injured, attacks by one group against the other have escalated, and if truth be told, we are not hearing the actual death toll.

If I were a foolish man I would ignore what has taken place in this country over the last few decades. I would use the term “conspiracy theory” to set aside what some may call coincidence. I would applaud, and even elect those who denigrate “bitter clingers” who want to hold onto their guns, and the sovereign and fundamental right to self-defense. I would work to “infringe” on the rights of those who I might someday be set loose to exterminate.

While the many sleep comfortably, peacefully, and perhaps pray that God might suddenly appear and smite the evil entities that infest our world, there are those of us who live in the real. If we choose to stand by and watch our cities destroyed by vandals, and criminals supported by the very people we elect to enforce our rights, we will deserve every bit of suffering cast upon us. 

The Supreme Court has recently denied certiorari to ten petitions stemming from the second amendment. This has been done in the wake of the fact that several States now deny their citizens the right to own, and train with weapons “necessary to the security of a free State” as was intended by the Founders. The right that stems from the Duty that is commanded by the Constitution, and if truth be told, it is the bulwark of sovereignty that the Framers intended when writing the contract.

In, what appears to be an exercise in insanity, we do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Virginia is celebrating their recent gun restrictions by seeing Virginia City ban guns on city property. Rhode Island has completely banned “ghost guns” and have imposed very harsh penalties on those in possession. Amid this, the insane in the pro-2^nd community will stick to the strategy that the Supreme Court has rejected once again.

This Fourth of July I will gaze at the spectacle of a nation in turmoil. Cities torn apart, burning, looting, and rioting will be the perverse entertainment while I enjoy a beer, hotdog, or hamburger. Perhaps I will enjoy a second beer and maybe a cigar to top off the day, in which Fifty-Six fallible men signed their own death warrants to form a nation “conceived in liberty”.

Perhaps I will lament the time I served my country and ask for what reason did I sacrifice. Maybe after another beer the anger will rise to question why I’ve spent two decades fighting with government entities for the truth, and why I spent the time trying to educate the ignorant, the ambivalent, and the foolish who would rather we destroy ourselves in the flames of war than to admit that we have lost all connection with the men and women who shed their blood and tears for what was once the greatest nation on Earth. The one country that welcomed millions of immigrants to liberty, prosperity, and justice for all.

No Comments »

Underachieving And Outcome

June 16, 2020 | General

by Nicholas Testaccio

Let me be absolutely blunt about who I am. I am an underachiever. Some would disagree but allow me to explain.

At the ripe age of twelve I took the entrance examine for, what Thomas Sowell called an elite school, one of the exclusive high schools in New Your city, and therefore one of the top schools in the country. It was a grueling six hour exam. The qualifications required a few minimums including an IQ of 140, and other specifics such as reading comprehension, and math skills that were noticeably above average.

I was accepted to the school and did graduate. How, is beyond my explanation because I can honestly say that I rarely studied or paid attention. I did homework as a tedious chore rather than a means of learning. Even with my lackluster performance, I was offered a position at an engineering firm that proposed to pay for my college education. Of course, I turned it down as I was unsure as to where I was going in life. I lacked confidence.

I was so unsure that I could not recognize a calling if it hit me in the face. One English teacher assigned the class the task of writing an article on the Vietnam War. I wrote it, and the day came for grades. Before returning the assignment, the teacher said to the class, “I don’t do this, but this is probably the finest piece I have ever read on the war.” As he read it, I thought to myself that it was wonderfully written and wished that I could write as the person who authored the article. He handed out the papers, placed mine on the desk and tapped it where there was an A+. Where was I, and how could I not recognize my own work?

At that time, the draft was in full swing and my birthday was so high on the list that I had no chance of avoiding the draft. I still did not know what I wanted out of life but decided that whichever way the wind blows I will follow. A friend talked me into signing up for the navy. I thought he was crazy because that branch had a year and a half waiting list at the time. Two weeks later I was being sworn into the navy. Go figure! There is a backstory to how that happened, but maybe another time.

I went to bootcamp for what seemed like a lifetime, but managed to come out with all limbs intact, and grateful for mom’s cooking. The navy sent me to school to learn some navigation skills and other points for my selected position. For whatever reason, I excelled to a point that officers on the bridge would ask for my input, and the captain called on me on more than a few occasions when things were tight. I was so good at what I did that the captain offered to recommend me for officer’s candidate school. Of course, I turned it down. No sense in having a career serving your country, retiring early, and earning a pension.

Could I go on detailing all the missed opportunities? Yes, because there are more, but here I am writing articles on politics and law. I don’t do it because I’m making a living at it, but because I grew up at a different time, and I see this nation being destroyed, not only from external pressures, but also from within. Cicero is credited with saying “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”

Several years ago, I wrote an article on why the income tax was unnecessary. It received some attention that led me to a group of tax “experts”. When I say experts, I’m talking about people who could cite statute and how it related. They knew how it worked, and they knew that we were being scammed. That was some twenty-five years ago, and I have since read the code from 1939 to 1988. Without any change in the law, the tax code has gone from five-hundred pages to over thirty-five hundred pages of con-artist material designed to deceive, and distressingly deprive the common man of his property. Even today, there are researchers that are uncovering sections that the IRS refuses to explain how they are supposed to be used in determining whether your income is truly taxable.

As an example, the IRS has been asked to explain 26 U.S.C. § 83;

(a) General rule. –If, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of–

(1)  the fair market value of such property (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) at the first time the rights of the person having the beneficial interest in such property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over

(2)  the amount (if any) paid for such property,

shall be included in the gross income of the person who performed such services in the first taxable year in which the rights of the person having the beneficial interest in such property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever is applicable.  The preceding sentence shall not apply if such person sells or otherwise disposes of such property in an arm’s length transaction before his rights in such property become transferable or not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.

For more on 26 U.S.C. § 83, I suggest that you visit Take From Caesar. There you will note that the IRS Commissioner claims § 83 to be gibberish. It this is the case, then the law surrounding it is null and void.

While Mr. Myrland, author of Take From Caesar, knows of what he speaks, we have more than a few who are not only ignorant of their specific subject matter as to be “useful idiots” for those who would deny us of our rights. Observing these so-called rights groups has shown me that we are in such a tenuous position, made even more grave by those whose idea’s and supposed knowledge are ludicrous as to point towards a coming collapse.

If you have read any of my articles you know that I am a proponent of not only the right, but the more important, and lawfully defensible Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. The Constitution commands that the only recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” is “the Militia of the several States”. It is clear and it is simple when taken in context of those who framed and adopted the Constitution understood its words and terms to mean at that time. To those who debated the Constitution there was no question that Militia was “the whole people” with all able-bodied men required to be organized, armed, and trained. So, when Militia was adopted with the power to enforce our laws, and “the whole people”, be they rich, poor, land-owner, or tenant, were instituted with this authority, a nation of popular sovereignty was formed that essentially created a government without government.

The U.S. Constitution is a literal document that should be easy to read. It contains the composition of three branches of government. It enumerates delegated authorities, and restrictions that are placed on both the federal and State governments with the key factor being that “the Militia of the several States”, or in clearer terms, the people of this nation are the ultimate power.

Reading of the Constitution is constrained by a few legal doctrines, one of which is “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”. No matter what “magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text” you employ to support often ludicrous suppositions, the Constitution must be read as it is written. Unfortunately, as predicted by those who opposed the Constitution warned, the judiciary has corrupted the rule of law to centralize power. And yes, there were many who opposed the Constitution who wrote numerous papers of dissent explaining their objections.

However, the men who framed the Constitution were men well read, familiar with history, and the pitfalls of creating any form of government. With the knowledge that encompassed the previous failures attempting to secure rights for the people, the Anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights that was meant to warn public officials that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Men such as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason were wary of just about anyone who subscribed to any form of power. Taking from their own Bill of Rights, the Virginia legislature recognized Militia as “necessary to the security of a free State”. To the vast majority, even those in the so-called pro-2nd community, Militia is an abstract based on what they have been told, or chose to believe rather than its function, historical record, and authority. Their mindset exemplifies a complete misunderstanding of our form of government, and poses a significant threat to our liberty.

However, a brief reading of the Militia Act of 1792 says volumes of what facts even the self-proclaimed experts fail to understand or acknowledge. Militia is a self-contained unit of the people that may be called upon “to execute the Laws of the Union” but may refuse to do so. If they refuse to obey the orders of the president, they may be subject to a fine at court martial, which is conducted by the militia. In as much as Militia, in this country, had a history of over 150 years at the writing of the Militia Act of 1792, disobeying orders outside of the unit was to be expected if the situation called for it. Certainly, the men on Lexington Green and those who engaged British regulars in the ensuing battle were in direct violation of orders from the governor, and king.

Over and above being commanded into action, the Militia was intended as a law enforcement body with the ultimate authority to hold all political offices in check. This should be relatively simple to understand given that Article I, § 8, Cl. 15 specifically recognized Militia as the only authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. The question that I’ve often posed to those in the pro-2^nd community is, wouldn’t you much rather protect the law, arrest those who violate their oath of office, or are you satisfied begging those same people to protect rights they believe you don’t possess?

Over the years I have found that truth is the enemy. Ignorance trumps the truth at every turn. Truth cannot win out today for several reasons, one of which is pride. Despite the numerous losses the 2^nd amendment crowd has sustained they continue with the same programs and expect different results. Heller accepted as a victory has seen a dozen States remove the ability of the people to act as “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline” eviscerated. AR-15’s, AK-47’s and other commonly used weapons have been banned or altered in some manner as to affect their intended purpose. Undeterred by facts, and the slow erosion of freedom has not convinced the many pro-2^nd groups that they are on a path of failure.

In his article What “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” is that? Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes, “To put it most charitably, “the individual-right theory” of the Second Amendment is a linguistic and legalistic delusion of people who suffer from a peculiar sort of illiteracy. For, inasmuch as it derives from the last fourteen words of the Amendment, without reference to the first thirteen, it violates the fundamental—indeed, the very first—rule of constitutional law (as well as of English grammar), that all the words and phrases in each provision of the Constitution (or in an ordinary English sentence) must be construed together and interdependently, as a coherent whole.”

Perhaps my underachieving was all a plan that was formulated before I was conceived and brought into this world. At times it certainly seemed as if I was being guided to this point. Whatever it is that is out there, I can look back and say that my life would have been dramatically different had I opened my mind to what my heart was shouting. I have consigned myself that in the autumn of my years I will continue to try to accomplish what seems impossible.

Perhaps, as I wrote sometime back in The Real Body Snatchers the public has been turned and we are in the end game. Nevertheless, I must continue to prod, poke, and engage until I am able to break through. Surrounded by those who have made no effort to study the law, and the subject matter, I go on with the hope that there will be an awakening. I have consigned myself to the realization that ego and ignorance will guide the masses while our children will suffer the consequences of pride that  history has repeatedly warned leads to disaster.

No Comments »

Is This The Final Stage Of The Overthrow?

June 1, 2020 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, History, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

At a time when people were born to serve kings, American colonists were clashing with British troops, and Thomas Jefferson penned a unique doctrine on the relationship between “Governments … instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

American Militia, “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion”, mustered on Lexington Green, and engaged British regulars all the way back to Boston.

From the time the Declaration of Independence was made the first law of a new nation, until hostilities ended in 1783, the People fought a grueling and costly war for independence, not only from Britain, but also from the old collective of monarchs.

A new nation, “conceived in liberty”, was about to form under a concept that was unique to all the peoples of the world; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

The concept of rights is not something unique to our form of government, nor was it a novel idea at the time of the revolution. When Henry I ascended the throne in 1100 A.D., he set to doctrine the Charter of Liberties of King Henry I.

More than one hundred years later, on June 15, 1215, King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta to avert a Civil War when confronted by a host of rebellious barons. Ten weeks later, Pope Innocent III nullified the agreement, and the English countryside was plunged into war.

The history of rights acknowledged, and then revoked is long, and often painted with “the blood of patriots, and tyrants”. While the words in the Declaration may ring as a statement of liberty from birth to death, it is a concept that must be enforced by men and women of courage and fortitude. They must be true to their neighbors, and they must be true in their heart that, above all, freedom is our province, and our responsibility.

Jefferson did not write, nor did the signers of the Declaration recognize “that all men are created equal” and they remain so for the rest of their lives. The concept of equality is a notion of status across a spectrum of laws, abilities, consciousness, determination, and a love of liberty. Obviously, the doctrine laid out in the Declaration can only work when the People understand that freedom does not come lightly. It comes at the cost of diligence and duty. It must be ever protected from the tyrant, the ignorant, the ambivalent, the foolish, and the “useful idiots” that help to destroy a nation.

We are amid, what has been labeled, a pandemic; “an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population.” Whether or not COVID-19 lives up to its label becomes more and more questionable by the day, we are nonetheless acting as if it has the blessings of the Grim Reaper. We have been forced to shelter in place. Schools are closed, only businesses that have been deemed necessary are open, social gatherings of any type are considered inappropriate, and hoarding has become an issue. Many essentials have become scarce. Chicken is often missing from stores, the price of eggs has doubled, milk products will be next as I have noticed scarcity of some brands. Canned goods are in short supply, and prices have risen. I can see the price of pork products rising as Smithfield has closed three plants, and Tyson recently closed a plant.

Political bantering, and a lack of information has made the situation worse. By this time, every year we could have thousands of deaths from some flu in this nation alone. I have not heard anything at all about a flu problem this year, and certainly the numbers from this dreaded COVID-19 don’t reflect any greater stress on society if we actually count those who died because of the virus, but not with the virus.

I have heard different stories from different doctors. A few, the high profile type that the media loves to use to sell an agenda, claim that “the sky is falling”. Others are saying the opposite, but you will not see them on the mainstream media. Recently, I’ve watched YouTube video’s featuring dissenting views by those who call out Dr. Fauci for being a fraud, a tool of big pharma, and essentially a deep- stater.

Once again, with the help of a dishonest and despicable media, we, the common folk, are in the dark as to what is real, and what is fiction. How are we to overcome when we are given only some facts, and half-truths? More importantly, how are we to survive when we allow government to command us into intolerable positions.

Recently, there have been protests against the lockdown. With typical derision, many in governmental positions, and their tools in the media, these protests have been mocked for one reason or another.

There is nothing to say about the propaganda spewed out by the leftists and the corporate media bent on selling us down the path to socialism other than what more would we expect. What I would focus on is the incredible ignorance regarding protests, and civil disobedience.

Once again I must point to the fact that the Declaration of Independence lays out the relationship between “governments … instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, wherein all power stems from the People. Later, after a long and arduous rebellion, the Founders proclaimed that “We the People *** establish Justice *** and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” and set down the rule of Law under the U.S. Constitution.

The Framers did not simply make lame proclamations to be interpreted to suit public officials, but rather recognized, and institutionalized, the fact that the one true force for liberty and freedom could only be the body of the People exercising the power written into the Constitution. A power so distinct that it was accompanied by statutes defining its organization, armament, and discipline. A power so well established as to have it roots dating back to the beginning of English common law.

It is the epitome of power as it exists by the fact of universal enrollment for all able-bodied men 18 – 45, organized as a body with the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16 enumerate what should be obvious to even those with limited mental capacity. Those two clauses define power that cannot be usurped by any act of a public official, or any branch of government. The two clauses accomplish crucial provisions that place sovereignty in the hands of the People, prevent the creation of any agency other than a defined part of “the Militia of the several States”, which thereby protects all our rights.

Confusion, misinformation, and violations of the rule of law abound in this COVID-19 pandemic. It is perfect for instituting government control over every aspect of our lives. We receive instruction from on high telling us what we can or cannot do. It is the cover that every would-be tyrant dreams of, and in that light, we have certainly seen those who have taken every advantage.

But, despite the claims of conspiracy theory by blue state politicians and their accomplices in the media, one glaring fact has come from this outbreak. We are dependent on an enemy that seeks to dominate our country and pull it under the umbrella of communism.

The Chinese control our pharmaceutical, technological, manufacturing, and food industries. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the largest producer of pork products, Smithfield, is owned by the Chinese. In fact, we have allowed the Chinese to buy strategic ports, and land right here in America. It should also come as no surprise that the Clinton administration allowed sensitive technologies to be sold to the Chinese.

Couple all of the questionable, and certainly illegal acts of our government, with the fact that we do not have the manufacturing facilities necessary to engage in any war that is certain to take an enormous toll on equipment within the first few weeks. How would we replace vital pieces of equipment that we have outsourced, and who, with the rank of general or admiral would allow such treachery?

Put that all together with the obsession of leftists in this nation with the disarmament of the public, and an obvious conspiracy, be it wittingly or otherwise on the part of some, comes to light.

The Chinese have had a one child policy for decades in order to stem the growth of their population. With forced abortions came a prejudice to end the female fetus and keep the male. That produced a certain outcome that should be frightening to anyone with a background in, or knowledge of historical fact.

The Chinese have created an imbalance in nature. Throughout the history of this Earth, the female population has always surpassed that of the male population. At some points, the ratio was quite high, and not that far in the distant past. During the 1970’s, the Australian government promoted a program to entice males to come and settle with the guarantee of a job, and the inducement of meeting some extremely attractive women. At that time females outnumbered males by a ratio of 7 to 1. A nation could certainly survive and prosper under that condition, but there would be many unhappy women competing for few men.

With China’s one child policy, they have created an extremely dangerous condition that may lead, and has in the past, to open warfare. The Chinese can muster an army of over Thirty Million men more than willing to invade any nation in the hope of claiming a female partner. The Chinese have mitigated part of that by expanding into both third world, and industrialized nations where Chinese men could find a bride. It is certainly most efficacious in third world countries where women would understand that, for themselves and any children, they might have a much better life marrying a man with financial potential beyond that of the local population.

And the tell all of the global agenda of communism, and the suppression of all rights comes from the fact that Chinese State Media Demands That U.S. Citizens Be Disarmed.

Even with the size of the military that the Chinese could muster, they would have to contend with several issues.

1. Support of an army is critical, and China is thousands of miles from the U.S.. They have mitigated some of this by establishing ports, and land for supply basis.
2. Transportation over such a long distance would leave Chinese support vessels and plains open to devastating losses. This has been mitigated to some extend by our governments supply of military technology to the Chinese.
3. An invasion of such magnitude would lead to considerable loss of infrastructure that would require significant effort to reconstruct.
4. Once here, the Chinese military would have to contend with an armed populace, and even if we consider historical fact that most citizens will simply lay down, there will be a contingent that will not. Of course the U.S. government is attempting to mitigate this by disarming its population and attempting to ban “weapons of war”.
5. To their South Western border lies India, a nation with a population about the same size as China. The two countries have engaged in border conflicts for decades. India might take advantage of a large scale move by the Chinese.
6. Russia, and some of the European nations might counterattack China when it senses a weakness.

I am sure that I could come up with other issues, but I imagine that such an attack by China has been war gamed to death by military strategists around the globe. I am simply putting into perspective what I see as part of the action taken by both governments. I would be amazed if pentagon officials had not sat down with the president, the Speaker of the House, and other top public officials to, at least, warn of the dangerous actions in which we have participated over the years.

Am I off the track? Have I missed the mark? Is an invasion of America unfeasible, one way or the other?

Consider the condition of America as I previously laid out in relation to our self-destruction by the elimination of our manufacturing sector. During WWII we produced ships, planes, arms, and ammunition at staggering levels. Just in the year 1943, the U.S. built 94,000 aircraft. Total output for the war was over 300,000. We built over 1,200 capital ships such as battleships, cruises, and destroyers. We built thousands more support vessels. The output was on a scale that was well beyond what the Axis could produce.

During WWII, there was a segment of the population that was opposed to our effort, and that is understandable. No one wants war, but when it came the vast majority chipped in, one way or another.

Today, we face a far greater enemy in the form of subversives, traitors, and leftists. Communists have taken hold of a major party, the media, and our education system. In my mind, the overthrow of America is on the table. The COVID-19 lockdown has simply made it clear to me that the “game is afoot”, and we sleep while the wheels of despotism turn at every opportunity.

No Comments »

What Is The IRS?

November 11, 2019 | General

by Nicholas Testaccio

Let’s start with the following footnote from Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979); “There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.”

In a book titled “The Law That Never Was”, Bill Benson points out, with some Seventeen-Thousand certified and notarized documents that neither the Sixteenth nor Seventeenth Amendment were ratified by the States. From the outset, there was dissent as to the meaning of the amendment, and the authority of the congress to tax beyond the power it was already employing.

Shortly after the Sixteenth Amendment was declared ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox, two important cases went before the Supreme Court; Brushaber v Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), and John R. Stanton v Baltic Mining Company, et. al., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

Brushaber is rather extensive in its treatment of the case before the court. In short, the court notes the language of the Sixteenth Amendment and opines;

“It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18]   -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. *** since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

Later, that year in Stanton, the court condensed the previous opinion to a more succinct determination, and restriction;

“But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived *** Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect…”

For decades, there were no taxes placed on the wages of the individual, and it is extremely significant to note two very important aspects of law. In 1939, USC 26 contained one page of one section of the code that specifically stated, “How to determine taxable income”. That section is now 30 pages long, is ignored by almost every professional, and the IRS that claims the section cannot be used to “determine taxable income”.

Significantly and echoing the court in Stanton, “the taxing power of Congress and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists.”; 26 USC § 39.22 (b) – 1 Exemptions; “under the Constitution not taxable by the Federal Government”. Law cannot be arbitrary, argumentative, indecipherable, complicated, and contradictive. It must be clear to everyone. It must be clear to those of common intelligence. It cannot state one rule, and have it contradicted by an agency, nor the courts. It must be firm, clear, and concise. It cannot be intractable, and subject to interpretation by any bureaucrat or tin-pot dictator who believes that they are a power outside the delegated authorities granted by We the People

But 26 USC is not simply the Income Tax Code. It enumerates the decisions of the court by specifically listing the sources and activities that are used to “determine taxable income”. Subtitle A lists some eighty-six different taxes with the liability stated and referenced in “operational” sections of the code. None of them apply to the individual living and working in the United States, with the source of wages confined to activities conducted within the borders of this nation, and this is confirmed at 26 CFR 1 (1.861-1–1.864-8T) “Income from sources inside or outside U.S., determination of sources of income,.”

The law in this area is conflicting only by the conduct of the IRS, and the people we elect to protect our rights. The courts appear to be in unison on the facts regarding taxation.

Redfield v. Fisher, 135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (Ore. 1930):

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):

“[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right…”

Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 (1930):

“A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege … The right to acquire and possess property cannot alone be made the subject of an excise …. nor, generally speaking, can an excise be laid upon the mere right to possess the fruits thereof, as that right is the chief attribute of ownership.”

The law not only prevents the enforcement of the “income tax” as it is currently being applied, it lends a second level that is often ignored. The collection of information by the IRS, or any other agency of government, is restricted under the Paperwork Reduction Act; 44 USC § 3500, et. seq.. The Act requires that all forms must be approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget. Agencies were required to file for approval by stating the exact purpose of the form, and why it was necessary. If the form was approved by the OMB, it would be given a specific number, placed on the form, and that number would reconcile with the OMB’s definition for the stated purpose.

These Forms, such as the ubiquitous 1545-0074, From 1040, are limited to specific informational retrieval categories.  Ref: Title 26 CFR part 602.101 –
    CHAPTER I–INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
                             (CONTINUED)
PART 602–OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT–Table of Contents
Sec. 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
(a) Purpose. This part collects and displays the control numbers assigned to collections of information in the Internal Revenue Service regulations by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The Internal Revenue Service intends that this part comply with the requirements of Secs. 1320.7(f), 1320.12, 1320.13, and 1320 .14 of 5 CFR part 1320 (OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act), for the display of control numbers assigned by OMB to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations.

So, we see that The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 mandates that all required forms be approved and listed by the Office of Management and Budget. 28 USC FRCP 12(b)(6) declares that No American working and living within the Fifty States of America may file irregular, and or incorrect forms to the Service.  And it is regulated by 4 USC § 110(a)&(b) that Form 1040, OMB 1545-0074, is an irregular and incorrect form when posted by a wage earner living within America, who is not the person subject and liable to the imposition of this State’s libels imposed upon gross receipts. 

With all this law standing in the face of the conduct of the IRS, and the improper application of the so-called “income tax”, we must ask the question; what happened between 1916, and the imposition of a tax, in the early 1950’s, on the wages of the individual?

Beardsley Ruml was head of the New York Federal Reserve and prior to that he worked for the Department of the Treasury and in 1943 promoted the plan for withholding from wages. While head of the New York Fed in 1945 he made a speech, titled Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete, to members of the American Bar Association. In that speech Ruml stated the following:

“The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.”

Ruml goes on to note that the purpose of the “income tax” was to redistribute wealth. But how has that worked? Since the scheme of “withholding” there has been a slow, but obvious widening gap between the wealth of the middle and lower incomes to the top 1%. The gap is so wide as to be irreconcilable in terms of what the “income tax” accomplishes. The chasm is no longer measured in mere dollars and cents, but rather Hundreds of Millions, and Billions of dollars.

What has the “income tax”, as it is now enforced, allowed this government to do? The current admitted national debt is over Twenty-Two Trillion Dollars. A debt, for which, the American people and their posterity have been made liable. The admitted to debt is daunting to say the least, but when we hear the claims of the government’s official accounting office, we are dealt numbers so large as to make any thinking American pause and ask, what have we allowed to be done?

Aside from the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is so ponderous, misapplied, and misunderstood by those who claim to be professionals in the area is the fact that the service has been used as a terrorist organization. It acts beyond any reasonable authority and thumbs its nose at court rulings.

The agency has no authority to Lien or Levy without a court order, nor can it proceed without adhering to due process;

United States v. Bisceglia 420 U.S. 141; “So here, Congress has provided protection from arbitrary or capricious action by placing the federal courts between the Government and the person summoned.”

Davis v. Scherer, 468 US 183 (1984); “If a question is raised regarding the recognition of a taxpayer’s right to due process of law, the issue should be resolved before proceeding… Violation of a taxpayer’s clearly constitutional rights could expose a collector to personal liability.”

Helvering v Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U.S. 481; “The taxpayers were entitled to know the basis of law and fact on which the Commissioner sought to sustain the deficiencies.”

Despite the myriad of rules, regulations, laws, and court decisions the IRS operates well beyond its authority. It does so for very specific purposes. It is used as a terrorist organization that plunders the wealth of the nation. It is feared by most. By its actions, it allows the government to conduct itself in a manner that is not befitting a nation of laws. We have been in some form of conflict for more than Sixty-Nine Years. We have squandered wealth so vast that it is, according to government accounting, incalculable.

That wealth has gone to war, the death and destruction of women and children, old and young alike, and nations. Our good young soldiers, many of whom come home with a burden so devastating that many commit suicide. War is a horrible enterprise that wreaks havoc on the military and civilian on either side of the conflict. Resources are squandered, and lives are broken.

The imposition of the tax does, however, allow for the devaluation of the dollar, and inflation. The enormous amount of wealth accumulated by members of congress who have wealth way beyond what their earnings would indicate. Corruption abounds. Our representatives, the people we elect to adhere to the rule of law do nothing of the sort. They legislate beyond their authority, often at the behest of lobbyists, and, I’m sure, by conspiring with others who are willing to pay them for this favor or that. How else can you explain the wealth of people such as Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and others who’ve never held anything more than a position that allowed them to rape their constituents?

The “income tax” is a tool of tyranny as it is currently applied. It allows the unscrupulous to enter the halls of the legislatures and garner wealth beyond their worth and integrity. It creates a methodology for redistributing wealth from the lower classes to the elite through inflation, and the creation of unnecessary debt.

I will send this to my elected representatives, Senator’s Bob Menendez, and Cory Booker, Congressman Frank Pallone, along with a challenge to debate me, or state the specific statutes that make Mr. and Mrs. America liable to pay an “income tax” as it is currently being applied. Of course, these three liars and cowards will not respond. They are an indication of where this nation is going. They will desecrate the rule of law and be left unaccountable for their crimes.   

Joseph Bannister, former IRS CID agent, made it a point of studying the code and drawing the conclusion that there was no law that required the payment of the individual “income tax”. For his honesty, and bravery he was asked to resign and then prosecuted for manufactured crimes. For his integrity, despite the attempted frame, he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

After asking for a legitimate determination, contacting my representatives, and confronting my employers, none of whom have answered the question of taxation, I have one request for those who see this article. Pass it along so that everyone will hear “A cry of defiance and not of fear” until all that we hold in the public trust are brought to heel.

No Comments »

My Country, Right or Wrong

August 18, 2019 | Constitution, Founders, General, History

by Nicholas Testaccio

Stephen Decatur Jr. was just Forty-One years of age when he passed from this Earth, but he had become a legend as a heroic leader in the early days of our struggle to maintain this country as a free and independent nation.

He rose to the rank of Commodore, commanded several ships, fought in the War of 1812, and the Barbary War’s. He is best noted for his comment, “In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.”

I am among the few who is sometimes praised, or sometimes demonized for serving the nation. It is difficult giving one, two, four or more years to a country that demands an allegiance to whatever duty required, for whatever undertaking.

General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine at the time he served. The General is well known for being distinguished as one of the few men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, but less known for his book ‘War Is A Racket’. In it he details some of the wrong doings that were undertaken by greedy, and selfish men with the assistance of their collaborators in the halls of government. Young men sent to do the bidding of those who have no regard for life or liberty. They would gladly sacrifice the life of your child to fill their wallets.

The general is also known for his outing of a plot to overthrow FDR, in which he was to lead a march of veterans against the government. He risked his good name, and reputation against some of the most powerful men in the country, an act of heroism that should be recognized and celebrated. It is very unfortunate that most have never heard of this particularly dark part in our history, but it is essential in understanding why a young man serves his country “right or wrong”.

We are ultimately a nation of individuals, families, and communities. Over time, the spirit that was the Revolution faded into a quiet norm with most going about their daily business, not caring to hold government in check, or even taking the time to comprehend the dynamic that perverts a nation and places all of us in jeopardy. When the bullets fly, and the bombs burst, there is no distinction between those who start wars, those who are soldiers, and those who are civilians. Indeed, as this Nation’s wars in the Middle East have reached seventeen years, we should be questioning what it is that we are trying to accomplish, and if the cost in human life and wealth has been worth all the toil and suffering.

I can tell you, from my perspective and only from what I know as an individual, not one drop of American blood, nor a penny from our coffers has been worth the tragedy that is part of this ongoing war. I’ve not seen any specific thing that I can lay my hands on to use the word success. Yet we are trudging along at the cost of the blood of our young, and billions in wasted dollars. The cost comes by the hands of politicians who are gutless creatures making promises and then escalating the conflicts.

This was supposed to be a Republic with ultimate power vested in the good People who “instituted” a nation of sovereigns with the authority “to alter, or to abolish” government when it runs afoul of the limited authority we’ve granted. Should those powers that “are reserved *** to the people” be usurped, it is up to us to remedy the criminality.

In this form of government “We the People” should not allow any representative, judge, bureaucrat, or agency to infringe in the least on the rule of law. However, currently it has become clear to me in the many encounters I’ve had, that most believe that they simply have no authority, and the only recourse is to hope for the right candidate. It is an attitude that boggles my mind. It is also inexplicable given the volumes of works from the time of the revolution, through the ratification of the Constitution, and the subsequent years of nation building.

I’m certain that at least some of those who believe that government is the ultimate authority are tools for the communist take down of America. That’s right, I said communist take down because what we are seeing today is right from the playbook of those noted for their aspiration to destroy the Republic and institute a regime to the liking of men such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and a list of equally infamous tyrants.  

Dictators abound. They exist right here in this nation. The halls of congress and the judiciary are filled with those who believe that they have some authority beyond the limited delegations specifically stated in the Constitution. Even in the State houses we see men and women who represent a growing number of politicians that have absolute disdain for the rules that were laid down by the Framers. This, in part, is due to a judiciary that has corrupted the rule of law, sometimes making ridiculous decisions that cannot possibly be corroborated by any section or clause in the Constitution, and often violate the Bill of Rights in the extreme.

The lessons of history, though often distorted by a victor or some agenda driven apparatchik, are there in the whole for the populace to explore and ascertain at least a modicum of information as to what has taken place. History books abound, and while there may be misquotes, distorted causes and testimony, the end results are there to examine. There are varying theories as to why our revolution was fought. What was the last straw that brought about bloody conflict? Can the same be asked about the Bolshevik revolution and the institution of communism across many nations? But in the end, those who fought our revolution created a unique form of government wherein the People maintained sovereignty over the State. However, in Russia they went from one form of tyranny to an even more brutal form. The pages of the books of those who experienced it firsthand are there to investigate, just as the myriad of pages on the development of America.

I noted in a previous article the words of Thomas Jefferson; “The people cannot be all, & always, well informed.”  Herein lies the arduous task of decision making. On the one hand, those who took up arms in our revolution gave their measure to a cause that proved to be a great undertaking, but until recently, a wonderful enterprise in the relationship of governance and citizenship. On the other hand, those who took up arms in the Bolshevik revolution were instrumental in creating a tyranny that exists in many nations, and now threatens the foundation of this country. With the availability of knowledge at our disposal, we are still wanting to comprehend what is taking place right in front of our eyes.

For the Russians at the time of the revolution they only knew what almost every other nation knew; some form of monarchy or dictatorship. But Stephen Decatur Jr. was an American living under the auspices of a Constitutional Federal Republic. The rule of law was simple, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In the case of a wrong perpetrated by the State, the good People had the Grand Jury, the Jury, and Militia to prosecute the law. Try as you may, you will not find an original authority in either the U.S. or any of the original Thirteen State Constitutions that will contradict that delegation as the Law of the Land. That was the tone, the theory, for which this nation was to operate with limits placed on the central government to conduct the tasks more suitable to “a more perfect Union”.

That was then, but this is now and unfortunately ignorance of the law and history seem to abound. It should be obvious even to the most casual observer that the Bolshevik revolution is being fomented in our streets. While liberty still rings loud in the history and development of our nation, American colleges, media, and politicians are pressing us to a repressive form of government.

So, the question, the theory, the course remains as to My Country, Right or Wrong? When Stephen Decatur professed his commitment, he fully had the backing of a nation operating under a rule that was enforceable by the People. It was not a monumental declaration for him. He had full faith in the men and women who founded the nation, the children who more than likely experienced the turmoil, and those who heard from their grandparents of the struggle, and the eventual creation of this nation.

Those who fought in the revolution passed their flintlock to the next generation, and so on. There was still the sting of the invasion by Great Britain in 1812, and the undeclared wars with France, and the Barbary States. Throughout the cry taken up by citizen, general, and president alike was “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute”. This was the spirit, in which Decatur spoke his allegiance. A nation of People brave enough to take on the British empire, intelligent enough to create a new form of government, and courageous enough to stand up for what was right. I would have made the same commitment.

Today, I ache to see that fire and commitment in the eyes of the men and women of this nation. Our streets are being invaded by those who believe that they have a right to whatever is here, and we have government “officials” willing to aid and abet the enemy for the sake of being re-elected. We have an uneducated lot that commit acts of violence while calling others fascists, when it is they who are the fascists. We have the representatives of the people spitting on the Constitution at every turn, and they are either too ignorant, or too corrupt to comprehend how evil they are.

How can anyone make such an important decision as to whether to back the nation when we’ve strayed so far from original intent? How do you draw a supportable conclusion when the State not only violates our rights, but seeks to disarm us so that we have no final recourse?

Those who debated and framed the Constitution understood that in order for this to remain a free nation, the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions” had to be emphatically placed and kept in the hands of the People. Yet, to explain this to a supposed modern-day patriot is akin to spitting into the wind.

The law of the land must be upheld as it was designed, but certainly not by dictates, whims, fears, and any other convoluted theory that diminishes the power of the People to maintain a free State. Only by enforcing the means, by which the Framers documented our lasting authority can we uphold the law, and thereby the liberty that was intended for the People.

If we so choose to ignore what is right in front of our eyes, we can only expect failure. However, if we take up the banner of a nation of freedom, wherein “sovereignty, itself, remains with the people, by whom, and for whom, government exists, and acts” we no longer strain at the question of whether our country is right or wrong. It is what we protect and enforce, so in taking the reins from corrupt politicians and judges we can draw the proper conclusions.

If our country is right by our hands then all is well, but if our country is wrong then it is up to us to rectify what has been done. We do so by the law that was given to us by what may have been the most astute body of politicians the world has ever known.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are monuments to the liberty, freedom, and self-determination of this country. Above all, they are the Law of the Land with the unique doctrine of “We the People” as the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union…”

No Comments »

This Fourth Of July – 2019

July 3, 2019 | Founders, General, History, Republic, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

This Fourth we should take stock of what we were, what we are, and what we will be.

There is an effort, an agenda so to speak, to change what this nation has strived for in the past, what it has accomplished, and the turmoil that is tossing us all about.

John 8: 2-7

At daybreak he appeared in the Temple again; and as all the people came to him, he sat down and began to teach them.

The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle they said to Jesus, ‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?’ They asked him this as a test, looking for an accusation to use against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, ‘Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.’ Then he bent down and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until the last one had gone and Jesus was left alone with the woman, who remained in the middle. Jesus again straightened up and said, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’

This nation was formed in blood by a rebellious people who were sinners the lot. They were traitors to the Empire of Great Britain. Their acts were that of people who used any tool, method, and any other device they deemed necessary to sever ties with those who lorded over them.

After a long and arduous fight, the chains were cut, and a new nation began the complicated struggle to form a Union of independent States. The battle was just beginning for this country, for it was developing in a manner that was unique in all the history of the world. It was to be a Republic wherein the People would be sovereign, and thus hold the reins over government.

“In order to form a more perfect Union” clarity, and determination were essential as it was obvious to the Founders that this nation could not survive as Thirteen small countries at odds with each other. Some compromises needed to be struck so that they could secure for their posterity a form that could flourish with the knowledge that aid and comfort would be provided by a Union.

No one is perfect, and certainly no one is without sin. We are once again embroiled in a skirmish to save this nation from annihilation. This time the enemy is not Three Thousand miles away, but is here in the courts, the legislatures, and sadly the schools and universities that most of our children attend.

We face a foe that is so insidious that it has absolutely no qualms about lying, deceiving, and even fostering violence in order to secure its goal; a country of slaves as has been created in so many other places. We are being torn apart from within. Marcus Tullius Cicero stated, long before the land we live on became this nation, “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

The struggles that this nation has endured from the Revolution, through a Civil War, a great Depression, two World Wars, and civil strife is a testimony to the fortitude of those who came before us.

Now we are engaged in what appears to be the opening salvos of a true Civil War wherein race, creed, and ideology clash. The battle lines are drawn by the one side with the help of their “useful idiots” as soldiers causing discontent, and chaos. They are led by corrupt politicians who are on record calling for violence against the opposition. They are supported by educators who have a deep hatred for what they perceive as some injustice, or slight. They are bolstered by a judiciary that has long lost its mandate of justice for all.

The other side is led by those who have long ago forgotten how this nation came into being, and cower at the mere word that might have them perceived as some sort of villain. They “indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. *** [they] cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!”  – Patrick Henry

I am reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson; “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. *** What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? *** The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

History repeats itself in a manner that is often frightening to this writer, and hopefully to others.

So, this Fourth of July I will look upon the words of the men who struggled with life and death to  form a new and unique nation. I will remember history as it was with all its lessons. I will remember the pitfalls, the mistakes, the successes, and the accomplishments that made a nation that strove through countless conflicts to give us liberty, and justice for all.

No Comments »

What Guides My Path

June 16, 2019 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founding Documents, General, Republic, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” – Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775

History tells us that men are more likely to sit quietly and suffer rather than to right the wrongs that are cast upon them. They make no allowance for what their docile attempts at reconciliation may have on their posterity. “Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.” – Thomas Paine

Over the years, I have been called many derogatory names for my stand on the Second Amendment. I’ve been called an idiot, a dolt, moron, and even a traitor. On more than one occasion I’ve been told to go back to my masters. Nope! I’ve not heard that from anyone who wants to take our guns, but rather supposed supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group of so-called patriots, as far as I can tell, know little to nothing about the subject. They parrot much of the false doctrine promoted by groups such as the NRA, and GOA. In fact, I was asked to leave a group for speaking about what the Second Amendment clearly states; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” It does not go on to say that we mean only the individual, but in the context of the Law as the Framers knew it to be, the individual was ultimately responsible for acquiring and maintaining his “weapons of war”, in order to fulfill his requirement to be armed and trained in the Lawful Militia.

When I started my journey, the first thing I asked was, “What do those words, “A well regulated Militia” mean?” I was told by members of the NRA that they meant nothing. So, the men who debated, and understood the meaning of the words that they placed in the document, were what? Were the words irrelevant? Did someone say, let’s add some words to confuse people? Was the intent to make the document a twisted wrangle of unexplainable non-sense so the good People would eventually lose their rights?

The Constitution begins with “We the People”. It then goes on to delegate certain limited powers to the federal government and impose duties and restrictions on the States. So that the People are firmly in charge, the Framers clearly placed in our hands the authority to enforce the rule of law. Over the years, the judiciary, and its esquire’s have muddled what the Constitution clearly states. Warnings came from those who opposed the Constitution that the judiciary would usurp what the Framers enshrined, and then take justice from the people and centralize it to, what has become an oligarchy.

In debating the rule of law, I’ve noted over the years that it comes down to one recurring fault, the People have lost the concept of a free society in which they are the ultimate authority. It eludes even the most well read among us. In fact, they will argue assiduously for their own demise by citing every so-called expert who knows so little as to refer to this as a democracy wherein the branches of government should decide what the Constitution says.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the seminal document on the relationship between the people and the governments they form in order to protect their rights. To some this means that we have a body that dictates and enforces the law. In our form of government, what the Founders did was to create a vehicle for the legitimate enforcement of a set of rules that We the People have prescribed. The underlying fact is that government was never given any authority to prosecute without the overriding consent of the People. We have a Grand Jury that investigates a complaint in order to determine whether a wrong was committed. If that wrong can legitimately be established, and if that suit can be rectified to the satisfaction of the person who has been violated then justice is served.  

If the violation cannot be rectified, and the perpetrator is not readily within the grasp of a sheriff, or marshal, then the Militia is called forth “to execute the Laws of the Union”. Once the perpetrator is in custody, a Petit Jury is empaneled so that the facts, and the law may be examined in order to make a final determination of whether or not a harm has been inflicted, whether or not the accused is indeed the perpetrator, and if the facts reconcile the complaint.

In the case of some supposed crime against the State, in other words if a statute that originates from some limited authority granted by the People, then the Petit Jury also has the duty to examine the law, and make the determination on the constitutionality of the law in question. For it is We the People who are the author and source of the Law. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “It is to be interpreted, as all other solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all the terms and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma or party. It is the language of the people, to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men. The people have established it and spoken their will; and their will, thus promulgated, is to be obeyed as the supreme law.”

This is a Constitutional Federal Republic despite the constant repeating of the term democracy. It is based on a series of laws that “The Senators and Representatives *** and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

Within that document, to which our representatives, and including myself as a veteran have sworn an oath, reside the words, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”.

Patrick Henry recognized, from the lessons of history, that there were pitfalls in that no matter how clear the words in the manner understood by the delegates, there would be those who would distort and corrupt the rule of law. Under his leadership, the Virginia House demanded a Bill of Rights to place further restrictions and duties on the agencies of government. James Madison argued that it would be superfluous, but relented, and the Bill of Rights became a part of our system of law.

Within that Bill at Article II are the words “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.”

The United States Constitution is a unified document that must be read in its entirety. It was written at the end of a bloody conflict, in which at least some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had lost their lives, their families, or their wealth. While those they bequeath the duty to create a nation of independent and sovereign People were unsure of the architecture, none were unsure of the role and the Duty of Militia as a foundation for the enforcement, and the security of what they were about to lay down for their posterity.

As they set out on the task of creating this unique experiment, they defined the roles of the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial branches. Every branch was built from the ground up since they could not refer to history for its structure. Each received a specific set of instructions on how to perform their duties. What they had no need to elaborate was the militia. On April 19^th, in the year 1775, Seventy organized, armed, and disciplined Militia under Captain John Parker faced Seven Hundred of General Thomas Gage’s regulars on the Green at Lexington. On their retreat back to Boston the regulars were confronted by organized Militia from the various communities in their path.

What happened on April 19^th is legend, but it is nonetheless a fact of history that today’s supposed patriots in the second amendment community dismiss as something other than a pertinent aspect of our Rights, and Duties. It was the foundation for which men like Patrick Henry, and George Mason insisted upon as “necessary”. It was the basis for a free and Sovereign People never to be disposed to the convulsions, and corruptions created by the latter day proponents of a Constitution to be “interpreted”, and thereby invalidated with posturing on what the law should be, rather than what “the true sense and meaning of all the terms” meant in “the language of the people” at the time of the ratification.

There is nothing in the Constitution that should be changed without an amendment. There is nothing in the document that needed to be changed. The changes made were intended to weaken the authority of the People and centralize power. The changes made did not affect something that had been there before, or the changes that did were designed to move us away from the stature of a republic.

What I’ve found over the years is that a successful program has been instituted in order to control the narrative that would lead us to a condition, in which all our rights are fundamentally void. We are essentially a rudderless people who believe in all the tripe posted by those who have not the slightest inkling of the original intent, the principles, and the foundation. Those who profess to be or are lauded as constitutional scholars should know some of the fundamentals such as the fact that Article IV, Section 4 has not been amended. Article III does not give the judiciary, or any other body the authority to interpret the law, or for that matter grant immunity to those who step on the rights of the People.

At the heart of the issues we face today is a populace that has been convinced that a right can be regulated and licensed in some manner. The licensing of a right brings it to a condition that it has been converted to a privilege. Why anyone claiming the accolade of constitutional scholar would subscribe to such a blatant obstruction of our rule of law is beyond the pale. The word “unalienable” as it appears in our Declaration of Independence, and as it applies to all our Rights precludes any restrictions. The definition of “unalienable” in the common language of the day; “Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred.”

Yet, government goes along attacking the rights of the People while claiming some compelling interest, or “[t]he State of New Jersey has, undoubtedly, a significant, substantial and important interest in protecting its citizens safety”, Id. at 437 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. i739, 745 (1987)). There are at least two glaring issues with the District Court for New Jersey citing Salerno. First, and foremost, the U.S. Constitution places the Duty in the body of the People as “the Militia of the several States”. Militia, as the Framers experienced it were all able-bodied men organized, and armed with their own firearms, and recognized as the sole authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

The law, and historical background surrounding the militia has not changed in more than Three Centuries. It has, however, been made irrelevant through agenda driven rules and regulations devised to muddle the authority, the structure, and thereby the ability of Militia to carry out their Duty and halt the ever-encroaching monstrosity of a government no longer of the People.

Simply put, the U.S. Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” By every measure possible, we have endeavored, and succeeded in violating the Preamble. The basic concepts of freedom and liberty as laid out in the Declaration of Independence rest on our ability to protect and defend the rule as set out in the Constitution. We limited the congress, the executive, and the judicial branches not simply through words, but rather by giving ourselves the only recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”, but also by stating for our posterity what is “necessary to the security of a free State”. Over and above whatever acts, and judicial decrees may come our way, it is our responsibility to reconcile them in a manner that complies with the rules we originally set to Law.

If we are to wonder off into never-never land, where the rule can be changed to suit some agenda, we’ve established the fact that there is no rule that cannot be broken, there is no “security of a free State”, and ultimately, no security for ourselves or our posterity.

The establishment, and subsequent recognition in the Constitution of Militia were the commitment of every able-bodied man to protect his family, community, and ultimately the nation from the tumult that might occur. It was established as the force of the People to protect and defend, not only the country, but the rule of law that we determined would most likely keep us as a free, prosperous, and safe nation. It was meant to be the First line of Defense, not the last. It was meant as that measure of a People determined to keep their freedom, and thwart the corruption of those who seek power, and “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety…”

No Comments »

Immigration, Lawyers, Taxes, and the RKBA

February 19, 2019 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Judicial, Militia, Sovereignty, Taxes

by Nicholas Testaccio

I have struggled over the last few months to complete an article. It’s not because I don’t have something to contribute to the latest problems. It’s certainly not because there aren’t many issues that should be commented on in the face of the propaganda that is being spewed out to the general public. It’s definitely not because there isn’t a myriad of questions that never seem to be asked.

I am frozen by the fact that despite the evidence placed right in front of us, most Americans will do nothing at all, while some will do nothing more than contribute to the downfall by either applying the same methods that are proven failures, or actually promoting the divide.

One of the issues we face today regards immigration. Let’s set the record straight right from the start so that readers will go into this article with a clear picture. I am not against lawful immigration wherein a country has the Sovereign authority to protect its borders, and its people from harm of any type.

The Declaration of Independence reads that “[King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…”

At the time that our first law was ratified, the population of the Colonies was approximately Thirteen Million people who occupied approximately Four Hundred Thirty Thousand, square miles, or more than Two Hundred Seventy-Five Million acres.

America was sparsely populated, and would certainly benefit from an influx of people, particularly those who would be needed tradesmen. There was also the fact that Westward of what was to become the United States, was a vast landmass. The Founders were cognizant of the fact that there were Hundreds of Millions of acres that could become productive parcels of land.

Simply put, the Colonies needed an influx of migrants who were capable, adventurous, and hungry for Liberty as it was hitherto unavailable to the World’s population. America needed immigrants willing, and able to create a great nation.  

Do we need migrants today that are unskilled? Do we need to have millions come across our borders who pillage our coffers? Do we need to have those entering the country and shouting that we should leave here as it is no longer our country? Do we need to have violent gang members coming here to establish their brand of crime?

The answers to these questions should be obvious. We need to protect our sovereignty, and not allow this nation to become a staging ground for civil war, and the loss of all our rights.

Next up is the question of taxation. Despite what may or may not be believed about this point of law, taxation as it is today saps billions of dollars out of the economy and accomplishes next to nothing other than pilfering the wealth of the nation in order to promote an oligarchy. It is done by convincing the people that taxing provides for the running of government, offers assistance to the needy, and a host of other, often unnecessary, and unconstitutional acts.  

Taxation as it is applied today is unlawful to begin with. As the Supreme Court stated in Stanton v Baltic that “it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”. So why are we paying a direct tax on the wages, or income we receive?

In 1947, undersecretary of the Treasury Beardsley Ruml concluded that if we start withholding small amounts of money from paychecks of Americans that they would simply go along with it. 26 U.S.C. requires that the Secretary send, by December 31 of that particular year, a notice to anyone who owes money to the government. Ruml reasoned that people would not voluntarily comply with a large bill received at the end of the year. However, taken in small doses there would not be any pushback.

While there is no law that anyone can find that requires the individual living and working in the United States to pay a direct tax on the money he earns, the government takes Trillions of dollars from the American people by the hands of an unchartered agency that the Supreme Court has stated was not created by any organic act of Congress. It simply exists to terrorize the public into handing over their property to an out of control government.

So, the question often comes, why do people who don’t pay taxes go to jail? Simply put, we currently lack the courage, spirit, and knowledge to act as the Founders of this nation did and had hoped that future generations would. However, there are a few out there who rise to the occasion, listen, comprehend, and act accordingly; see The Government v Whitey Harrell.

What Marcy Brooks, the foreman in the above case, did was to go beyond the indoctrination, and take a stand for justice. That jury did something that most would never consider. They rendered a just decision based in fact as applied to law, and justice.

Next up, the legal profession and the courts. Those who opposed the Constitution during the ratification debates realized that given time, and the position that they were granted, the judiciary would corrupt the rule of law, and centralize power to the government. It should be fairly obvious that we now have a judiciary that does not follow the limited delegated authority granted by We the People in our Constitution. The judges placed in such high positions work to implement their own agenda, and thereby place liberty in jeopardy.

Anyone who has gone through the court system can tell you that it does not serve justice at all, it functions to create a criminal base, and therefore wealth for those who belong to the private organization known as the Bar. It is also creating a class of elites who are not brought to justice for any of their crimes.

While I could go on about the condition of our legal system, none said it better than H.L. Menchen who wrote; “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost half.”

Now we come to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or correctly applied, the Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. I have a news flash for all those who believe themselves to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Every word in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is just that. Those words have no meaning at all unless We the People are capable of, and willing to enforce them.

Warning, no matter how you present the issue, explain it, instruct, discuss, or argue, you’ll receive push-back from those pretenders who believe they know the issue without studying it to any degree.

How do I know this? Because I’ve offered it several times in articles, discussions, forums, and presentations of the path to learn what the Founders intended. I’ve gone as far as to ask others to post a specific piece to the forums they visit. I asked for one legal brief to be posted that was authored by a man who has written more on the subject than anyone else I’ve ever read or heard of. The claws immediately came out from those pro-2^nd people who more than likely have never read a word of the original intent, and law on this subject.

In the brief the author wrote; “the Second Amendment must be read in its entirety. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 572-573 (1933). The Amendment’s goal is “the security of a free State”. It declares “[a] well regulated Militia” to be “necessary” for that purpose. And to guarantee that such Militia exist, it commands that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Howsoever that “right” embraces “Arms” convenient for an individual’s self-defense, it unquestionably protects all “Arms” useful for “the people[’s]” collective defense of “a free State” through the efforts of “[a] well regulated Militia”. That is the Amendment’s central concern. For all citizens are duty-bound to defend their polity. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262-263 (1934).”

The brief goes on in such a fashion as to explain not only the Right, but also the Duty required to protect and enforce the Right. However, the hate immediately came out, so I jumped in to ask if those deriding the brief understood it? Needless to say, I was declared as a troublemaker for daring to ask such a question and exhibit a willingness to explain it as a student of the subject.

The Constitution starts, “We the People of the United States”. It does not read the government of the United States, the representatives of the United States, or the oligarchs declaring such and such. It is a unique exercise of the relationship between the People, and the governments that they create in order to secure their rights. It should be obvious, but since it appears not to be, it must be clarified that power must rest in the hands of the People with whom “sovereignty remains”. How do we exercise that power, maintain our sovereignty, and a free State?

“One constitutional responsibility of the Militia is “to execute the Laws of the Union” (and the laws of their own States as well, because they are “the Militia of the several States”). U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15 and art. II.”

“To understand it, the Second Amendment must be perused “in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted”. See Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895). Throughout the 1700s, Americans knew, as a matter of law as well as fact, that “a well regulated militia [is] composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”. Va. Declaration of Rights (1776) art. 13. For statutes of the Colonies and then the independent States had provided that:

• With limited exemptions from service, all adult able-bodied free males from about sixteen years of age to superannuation— “the body of the people”—were enrolled in the Militia. No Militia law prohibited superannuated men from volunteering for Militia service, however.”

Here is where the ignorance, and the derision starts. Let me first state that I have explained and convinced a few as to why we actually have a Second Amendment. They were open minded people who had not been assimilated into the Borg mentality of the individual rights theory.

When I was introduced to the NRA decades ago, one of the first questions I asked was, what does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” mean? I was told that it meant nothing, and so I went on trying to ascertain more information on this all-important right. It took me years to realize that I was not only being misled, but that the deceit was intentional, and therefore undermined the principle of the rule of law. “[i]n expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. *** Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” –  Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 570-571

If the opinion of the Supreme Court in Holmes v. Jennison is to be taken as value, how can we make the critical error that the first Thirteen words of the Second Amendment mean nothing? Or that the meaning of the words in Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16 can be changed to something other than what the Framers assigned? What else are we willing to allow? Will we allow all our rights to be diminished?

The Militia Statutes provided the Colonists with the basis for enforcing good conduct, public safety, community cohesion, and therefore the ability to perform complete background checks without improper and questionable government intervention into our private lives. The proper function of Militia also provided the community, in general, on the spot Emergency Services in the form of Minute Men, and Reserve Militia who would perform the same role as technicians, so-called law enforcement, and nearby practical and proficient medical service. All the things that today’s public clamor for, are an underlying benefit of the form and function of Militia as the Framers recognized and incorporated into the Constitution.

All of the roles noted above can be accomplished by assigning existing agencies into Militia under the control of the People rather than bureaucrats, and politicians whose main concern is to retain their power. The funding, formation, and function could be made much more efficient with the proper application of law, and particularly with the People properly monitoring the monetary aspects of the community.

Why can’t it work? The answer can be found in the historical record. Throughout history you will find that the majority not only doesn’t want to be involved, and also by their actions they will support their own demise. This is especially notable in the supposed pro-2^nd community where they will deny, and disparage the law as it is explained throughout the historical, and legal record.

A basic explanation of why we have a Second can be read in a case that supposed supporters avoid; U.S. v Miller.

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

“With obvious purpose” seems to be lost in translation on those who claim their support of what is simply applied as a Right, rather than the intended Duty. Herein lies the straightforward issue that history repeats. History is replete with the record that once the subject requires a Duty, the  majority will not only avoid it, but they will go on the attack against any service to the nation, the State, and the community.

There is also the issue of educating the community on the subject matter. It is in the best interest of organizations such as the NRA, and GOA to keep its membership ignorant. The memberships, and contributions keep flowing with the false hope that some expert is doing the correct job. They’re not. Read the oral arguments from Heller. Alan Gura was unable to answer the questions of Justice Stevens. He was totally unprepared for them, and lost on the most important aspect of this vital piece of our law. You cannot preserve liberty if you subscribe to the notion that the State can regulate a right, or the People have no fundamental Duty and vehicle “to execute the Laws of the Union”.

The Duty to Keep and Bear Arms is such an important provision of our unique Republic that it cannot be ignored in its full context. Yet, the pro-2^nd community look at 14 words of the 2^nd amendment and they think they have the full story. It is an excuse to avoid our fundamental Duty to community, but also a prescription for failure as a free and independent people.

The volumes of information on this part of our law are quite large. It can be very difficult to even obtain the statutes. Never-the-less the law surrounding Militia is out there for anyone who wishes to educate themselves on the true nature of this law. However, the propaganda has been so persistent that even those who believe themselves to be supporters would much rather find any excuse they can come up with to disparage the truth regarding the RKBA.

Militia is part of the Constitution because the Framers were well versed in the history of the world, and the character of men. Who we are and what we are, is abundantly clear when it comes to the subject of the 2^nd Amendment. We would rather delude ourselves by thinking we are fighting a worthy battle rather than admit that State after State is essentially being disarmed. In the long run, I may not be around to see the fall of the RKBA, but my sons and grandsons certainly will. That will be a day that not only America laments, but also the rest of the world.

Never-the-less the supposed pro-2^nd people will act in any fashion they can to avoid the truth of the matter. Stop pretending that you’ve been insulted, or the messenger is too caustic, or that you’ve even an inkling of this most important aspect of a free nation. The nation is under attack from several sectors including those who pretend to be educators, and friends. Fifty years ago, the NRA presented a misinformed public with a losing strategy, and the public proved at least some of the Founders correct; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

No Comments »