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-2nd 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-2nd
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-2nd
community look at 14 words of the 2nd 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 2nd 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-2nd 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 »
