Restore the Republic

This Fourth of July 2015

July 4, 2015 | Founders, History, Militia

We have a tradition here at Restore the Republic. Each year I write a small tribute that refers to the day when the Continental Congress declared “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;”

This year I had not thought that my spirit was up to the task of celebrating independence from England when it is so obvious that we are now under a tyranny far worse than King George could have imagined for the colonies.

While we no longer have a king to lord over us, the acts of this government, from the local municipality to the federal executive carry the same bearing as “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant”.

So with no thought other than to squander some time in mindless entertainment, I sat down in front of the TV. I took a disc from my collection of movies and popped in an old favorite “The Patriot” starring Mel Gibson. It reminded me that there was a time when men truly understood the nature of duty to oneself, the community at large, and the nation as a whole.

It is a tale of the trials, tribulations, and the struggles that this life may present. It is the story of anger, revenge, courage, evil, love, and most of all, commitment. Mel Gibson portrays a man known as Benjamin Martin, who is feared as “The Ghost”. He is the fictional adaptation of a few of our legendary Militia who kept the resistance alive until the British were placed into a corner from which there could be no outcome but defeat. Francis Marion, Elijah Clark, and Andrew Pickens were just a few of those brave, cunning, and often times ruthless Militia who harassed and battled the British for what may have seemed an eternity.

It reminded me that men of fortitude once existed, and that sometimes they would forsake the comforts of home for a higher duty. From the Lexington Green where Captain Parker’s Militia men stood as rebels, through the forests of Georgia, The Carolinas, and Virginia, the Yeomen of the colonies, accustomed to their weapons as they were, fought a guerilla war against the British regulars.

Militiamen, who knew the way of the woods, appeared here and there to harass the Red Coats. Men as old as Hezekiah Wyman who was Fifty-five years of age whom the British titled “Death on a Pale Horse”. Older still was Samuel Whittmore, age 78, whose accuracy and barrage of fire led the British to believe that he was an entire rifle squad.

It reminded me that for some time now I have written of, spoken about, and petitioned for that most “necessary” body of men to come forth and save the Republic from the overwhelming destruction of liberty by bureaucrats, autocrats, corrupt politicians and their willing dupes who carry out orders of destruction upon their neighbors.

It reminded me that few are listening to the cries of a nation in despair, few know the true nature of survival, and fewer still are willing to give up their time to do what it takes to revitalize, not only Militia, but also the spirit that once made this a great nation.

It is the Fourth of July. It is a day when long ago men placed their signatures on their own death warrant by stating in a bold and clear fashion “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.

It is the Fourth of July. It is today, and men will no longer pledge to anything other than the box scores, the latest trivial event, or far worse, cry about what they haven’t received as a handout because Mother Nature was unkind, or something insignificant prevented them from accomplishing the most menial enterprise.

Where is the Militia today? It rots in the history books as a myth of days of yore when men of action marched off to the harshest of environments so that you and I could raise a glass and toast to something we can neither support, nor are willing to understand.

Nicholas Testaccio




“Fire – Fire”

May 15, 2015 | Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founding Documents, Judicial, Militia

Fiction is meant for entertainment. When grandpa told you stories about his youth, and he embellished a bit, his idea was to make it exciting. It’s done for the entertainment of the child.

When your fishing buddy tells the story of the one that got away, everyone has a good laugh while chiding him on the details.

I loved the Bourne series of the books, and the movies. The movies were a far cry from the books, but they were action packed. The movies were exciting, entertaining, and added the visual effect that you might not have imagined in the books. The fight sequences drew the viewer into the story, while the books told a story of intrigue about two mortal adversaries.

Fiction is all well and good when it’s made for the enjoyment of the public. When the fiction is part of the legal system it is a means of dismantling the law. It is not designed for the well being of the people, but rather the consolidation of power by government, and the powerful forces that choose our elected representatives.

These fictions lead to erroneous notions, concepts, and case law that are an affront to “A Declaration”, and The Constitution of the United States. The design can be nothing else but a strategy to bring us into the slow but inevitable decay of tyranny.

It seems to be the general belief that our unalienable rights are not unlimited, and that they can be regulated and licensed. In order to sanctify the blatant contradiction of the fact that the People “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, fictions are created as points of law. Often cited, as the proof is the statement that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”. This fiction of law is based in part on the half-truth related to the opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the court in Schenck v United States, 249 U.S. 47.

The fiction occurs because of the fact that the common man will not sit down and examine the details, nor take the time to read the actual case, from which this massive fraud derives. I say massive because men, women, talking heads, government crony’s, and even those pretending to be patriots repeat it. Someone said it somewhere along the line so it is believed, and truth will not overcome the combination of ignorance, and ego.

The case is based on the fact that Schenck, and others, were inciting people to violate a law that the congress actually had the power to create. It was 1917, and the United States was entering the war in Europe. Congress declared war, and as delegated at Article 1, Section 8, the Congress used its power “To raise and support Armies”.

I am a firm believer in the fact that those powers delegated to the government should be recognized as valid, but I am diametrically opposed to perceived or created powers based on interpretations. I do not subscribe in any way to the notion that we have a living Constitution. All these maneuvers are of course fictions created by the courts, and carried out by myths, compliance, and conspiracies.

In Schenck, Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. The controlling aspect of the statement points to the fact that the act inflicts an injury to wit, “causing a panic”. Even to the most casual observer a panic can, and will inflict some form of harm on those in the theater.

Holmes goes on to say, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.

In Schenck, the defendants were charged “with the mailing of printed circulars in pursuance of a conspiracy to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service, contrary to the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917”.

Holmes clarifies by writing “We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done”. Congress had declared war on Germany for the sinking of the Lusitania, an act that was considered an attack on the sovereign United States. In order to prosecute this war they exercised their power to protect this nation by calling forth the men of this country.

This entire case pivoted on arguments that were inadequate, and obviously detrimental to congresses authority “To raise and support Armies”.

Schenck could have argued that the war created a “clear and present danger that” it “will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.

The obvious underlying fact of the matter for those of you who run from the term “conspiracy theory” would have been that the Lusitania was indeed stocked with munitions, that congress should have been aware of this violation at least by way of their oversight of the War Department, and that the entire scenario was cooked up by J.P. Morgan and his associates who had lent the British and French over One Billion Dollars.

The British and French were loosing the war so Morgan and his associates needed a means of bringing the United States in to save the day, or more appropriately the money. None of this would have been a complete secret from the members of congress as not to make a viable defense. Over and above this is the fact that if congress perceived a “clear and present danger” then it had the duty to muster Militia to exercise its duty to “repel invasions”.

The congress does of course have the delegated power “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” in order that the Militia may carry out its duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” ***“suppress Insurrections”. By exercising this delegated power the Congress removes the chance of impropriety as the ‘Sword’ remains firmly in the hands of the good People of this nation who are the ultimate arbiters of the law.

The defense could have argued that if there was “a clear and present danger”, the Congress should have called for the authority “necessary to the security of a free state”. In this manner the Homeland would be on alert, and the good People of this nation would be well prepared, and on a war footing while learning the full extent of the attack.

Schenck and his cohorts had to know that they were violating law, and they failed on putting forth a defensible strategy. That was probably because of their lack of knowledge regarding the proper defense of the nation. This is the problem that we face today. We lack knowledge and understanding of the law, and the absolute need to hold strictly to the written word.

In all matters it must be clear that the state has the indisputable power to create then execute the laws as they are written without interpretations by a body that was not granted that power.

Some may argue that the state has to have some form of enforcement. No. The state may create legislation, but it is ultimately the People that must maintain the authority to “execute”. It must be this way in order to protect the populace from “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving *** Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation” and “pretended offences”.

But how would we survive without an FBI, DEA, BLM, EPA, and so on? Congress obviously has certain delegated powers to regulate, but those powers do not grant any authority to enforce outside the control of the People. Any agency can, and should be under the ultimate authority of the People as part of the Regular Militia, and subject to the procedures and disciplines of Militia. In fact, those agencies would more than likely work quite efficiently, and the documented practice of framing innocents in order to attain a number of arrests, or for whatever other nefarious reasons, would become a thing of the past. In addition, the statutes that were created for such offenses, court martial would deal with abuses.

However, Schencks actions as being cognizable under the laws of the U.S., the problematic defense of the action, and the opinion of the court are not in question. What is at issue is the strategic misquote of the words written by Justice Holmes, and the subsequent infringement of rights based on a fiction of law.

That misquote has been used as a method of reducing, and as far as I can see it is geared toward the elimination of all our rights. It has been most pervasive in the battle to destroy the Second Amendment and its true nature. You can’t own this, you shouldn’t own that, and you certainly don’t need this, just as “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”.

Those arguments extend the ridiculous statements such as, “well you can’t own a nuclear weapon” when debating the Second Amendment. To which I must ask the question, what kind of idiot would want to keep a nuke in his basement or garage? It speaks volumes to those who make such outrageous statements. Obviously no sane person would subject family, and friends to the potentially catastrophic affect of some incident pertaining to that device.

Obviously there are clearly insane people in governments around the world. Some of them do have their finger on the trigger of a nuclear arsenal, and in some cases it is “terrorists” who have acquired nuclear devices. I would worry more about those people than the good People of this nation in their constitutional role as the Militia of the Several States keeping a watchful eye on the security, and sanity of the nation.

The person who yells fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire does so to cause mischief, or perhaps with the intent of seeing persons injure himself or herself. That person does not call out for any good purpose. What possible good could come of the action? None!

This is where logic and knowledge of our peculiar form of law and governance comes into play. Wherein the misunderstanding of how harm and free speech have been lumped together to give an ever-expanding control to government agencies, and bureaucracies.

The First Amendment was not written to protect the injurious acts of a scoundrel, but rather the common man’s ability to spread the truth without fear of retribution from some agency of government. I cannot libel, slander, or defame another. Doing so would cause a harm that would subject me to a suit as an offender of the sanctity, and security of another. Causing harm is not part of any constitutional power or protection.

I can claim that operations such as Jade Helm 15 are in fact aimed at some nefarious outcome, and the possible lead to martial law. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect our speech against government intrusions on the rule of law. To be able to speak out when agents go beyond the limits of those powers delegated to them by the People. To be able to speak out when our elected representatives violate their oath of office.

The circumstance and arguments of the Schenck case are akin to this present government inciting, and arming terrorists around the world, and then telling the American people that while there is a substantive danger that you could be gunned down by anyone of a number of terrorist groups, you can only use those weapons that we allow, and while you foolishly wait for help from an unconstitutional agency your own lawful power cannot be employed.

The saddest part of this is the illusion that your rights can be regulated away by fictions created from interpretations, misstatements, and misapplications that the majority support out of some misguided notion of a powerful central government that does not work for the benefit of the People, but rather to centralize all power unto itself.

Nicholas Testaccio

Recognizing The Enemy, Part 2

April 11, 2015 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Founding Documents, Militia, Sovereignty

The year was 1924. In an article for The Baltimore Evening Sun, H.L. Menchen 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 the 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 a half.”

What Menchen wrote was a restatement of what the Founders feared most; a legal institution that would consolidate its power. For the most part, lawyers operate under the control of a legal system, but not the “rule of law” as those who delegated certain sovereign powers to the state instituted it.  Lawyers abide by the court, and not in accordance with what was intended as a nation wherein the People are the ultimate arbiters of the law.

During the ratification debates there were those who felt that there was wording in the Constitution that could be interpreted to mean other than what was clearly decided by the delegations. Suspicion was cast on the legal profession as a primary vehicle for corruption.

Writing as Brutus for those who opposed the Constitution, Robert Yates stated, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.”

The ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when the court started to dismantle the document by first taking allegiance to the Bar as the method, by which an attorney could counsel. Eventually by conferring upon itself the authority to interpret the law, the legal profession has made law a cesspool. When a lawyer speaks it is legalese based on misdirection, misinformation, misapplication, propaganda, and in many cases outright lies. I have seen enough judges perjure themselves from the bench, and I’ve seen one too many attorney’s sell out their client.

Lawyers take an oath that states in part, “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust…” Are we to believe that the position of state prosecutor, one that was despised by the Founders, is in any form complying with that oath?

From time to time the good People of this nation must be reminded that this is a nation of popular sovereignty. The state is an establishment, by which we the People band together in order to have a forum and method for protecting rights, freedom, and tranquility. We do so because there is, first and foremost, evil about that seeks to disrupt the lives of the common man. In the hope that they could limit, or possibly eliminate the encroachment upon liberty, the Founders created, and intended to maintain a uniform “rule of law” so that the state could not impose its awesome power on the individual by making rules outside its delegated authority.

It should be obvious that in order to maintain this system, it was up to the good People to enforce the law so that no one could unjustly prosecute, particularly by the hand of the state, any individual. Some clearly defined tools were incorporated into this nations Constitution that were to stand for justice, and prevent state abuses.

Government can never be a perfect institution. This was understood, and so the Founders attempted to design a functional government with certain limited delegated sovereign powers while “sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts”.

The Constitution established as indisputable law with enumerated powers and mechanism a bulwark against encroachment by the state. Even the common dirt farmer of the day understood the principles for which they had suffered through years of turmoil in order to create a nation of free People.

However, we now have a system of government that is beyond corrupt. It is everything that the Founders feared, and by no means the nation that farmers, merchants, laborers, and even clergy laid down their lives to create.

It has morphed into this, not because we lack the utility to thwart tyranny, but because we are a population that is as intellectually dishonest as the system that we allow to exist. We are a people that are so ignorant of the design of this nation that we work to support the encroachment and infringements by the bureaucracy rather than working to halt the obviously budding police state.

There is still hope, but that hope lies in a very few who are not encumbered by their ego. They are those people who live by the doctrine that every word in law has its intended meaning, and that assumptions in law, opinions of attorney’s, and judicial wrangling are the enemy of a free society.

You cannot maintain liberty if you subscribe to the notion “that any act of the legislature, contrary to the tenor under which it was created” is lawful. You cannot maintain liberty if you believe that it is the state, rather than the People who should possess the power of the ‘Sword’.

Logic should tell us that almost every lawyer is either ignorant of the law, or as many already believe, a liar. They do not fight the system, but rather operate in a fraud shrouded in legalese. Misapplication of law, improperly and illegally instructed jury’s are common place without an  attorney lifting a finger to put an end to those acts of judicial tyranny.

In most cases, instead of assisting your cause, your lawyer works to further his situation and that of the system. I’ve seen that far too many times to feel comfortable in what I laughing refer to as a court of law, lorded over by a black-robed bureaucrat. Has anyone heard of an attorney admonishing a judge for improperly instructing a jury?

To place a fine point on the legal profession, I once heard an attorney say that if lawyers were honest, most of us would not be paying an income tax. As one who has read through the code, I know this to be true.

The methodology “enshrined” in our Constitution to thwart tyranny are a grand jury, jury, and the Militia of the several states. These agencies of the People were intended to have the ultimate authority to stop the encroachment that is so obvious today. They cannot be voted away, legislated away, or judicially voided by instructions from the bench. They do not depend on what a lawyer might say, but rather what justice calls for, and what is the understanding of the People as to the function of law.

Each of the lawful bodies that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights have atrophied by our own hands, and our misguided trust of those within the legal profession.  We have succumb to “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”.

We not only submit, but we validate it by enforcing every act of twisted words, and unconstitutional agencies. All about us a police state grows. All around are lawyers whom, rather than speak the truth they work within their own system to slowly, but surely, take all that we have, all the rights, and eventually the freedom fought for with the price of blood.

Patrick Henry, an attorney himself, was one who had no love for the ratification of the Constitution because he saw it as an instrument that could be easily manipulated to take power from the People. He understood the character of men, and in particular those of his own profession. It is why he insisted, along with others, that a Bill of Rights be added as some measure of clarity and security.

That Bill was intended, not merely as words to constrict the federal government, but also as a doctrine for the states and the People to uphold the rule of law. In this nation, despite all the theorizing about what this or that might mean, “the Constitution must mean exactly what it says or it means nothing at all”.

It is simple enough to understand that words have specific meaning within the context of a statement. The U.S. Constitution recognizes just one body as that, which has the authority to “execute the Laws of the Union”. That authority is the Militia of the several states. It’s not debatable, nor can it be disregarded, removed, dismissed, or formed outside the spectrum of a body of all the People without the force of law.

You will note that most of my recent articles gravitate towards Militia at some point. I do this for a number of reasons. First, Militia is a lawful authority of the People. Second, it was not a voluntary organization, but rather mandatory on all. Third, it was under the direction of officers appointed by the state as demanded by the Constitution. Fourth, it cannot be lawfully formed outside the rule of law by persons with no lawful authority as so many believe. Fifth, it is “necessary to the security of a free state”. Sixth, the vast majority have no idea as to what Militia is, its intended functions, duties, its power, and its ever pressing need. I could go on.

Militia is so misunderstood by the populace that it is ignored or disparaged by even those who profess to be supporters of the Second Amendment; “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.”

There are “Thirteen Words” within that amendment that are disregarded. But the amendment doesn’t tell the entire aspect of law because at Article 1, Section 8 we can read:

“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 amendment and the authorities enumerated in the Constitution are acts of law, and as such cannot be interpreted away, nor can they be changed without the consent of the good People as instituted at Article 5.

Militia cannot be formed by a group of men outside the rules set forth by the Constitution that relied on the previously existing state statutes that defined all the workings of the body.

“A well regulated Militia” organized in a manner provided for by statute, and regulations created by the congress is a lawful authority that is included in both the federal and state constitutions.

“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.” Because the congress has the power “To provide for organizing” Militia, it does not have the authority to un-organize it as is believed by the pro-2nd community. In fact, the Dick Act that supposedly creates an “unorganized militia” does not contain those words, but instead contains the definition of those who are not “Regular Militia” as being “the Reserve Militia”. Reserve being those who are statutorily excused from the required scheduled training, or have reached the age of maturity.

As a matter of fact, as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution codifies Militia across the spectrum of law from the federal to the local. Neither the congress, the states, nor the People themselves have the authority to un-organize militia, or create bodies that do not comply with the law as it was originally defined.

Herein lies the heart of the matter when we talk about the legal profession, and the judiciary. The doctrine of law is clear. Lawyers fail to abide the simplest principles of the rule of law; “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.”

We fight endlessly about statutes that are enacted contrary to the Constitution, when it is those very statutes that contradict the tenor of law that are the problem. If we concern ourselves with the simple rule, as was the original intent we can regain the authority “necessary to the security of a free state”.

We need not run to those who have a vested interest in maintaining their status while diminishing ours. We need only to read and understand the simple words that the Founders gave us, and tell all others that we are perfectly capable of being the ultimate arbiters of the law.

“Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” – From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Nicholas Testaccio                                                                                             Part 1






Recognize The Enemy

March 19, 2015 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Founders, History, Sovereignty

Battles are won or lost on an act of heroism, a miscommunication, an errant command, an unexpected turn of events, or acts of treachery.

At Thermopylae a Greek named Ephialtes informed the Persians of a pass behind the lines of the Greek army.

On August 24th in the year of Our Lord 1814, the British set fire to parts of Washington, DC, that included the White House, and the Capital. It was a sudden storm that prevented the British from totally destroying the new nations Capital.

Miscommunication and blunders doomed Colonel Custer and the U.S. 7th Cavalry, as it did with Lord Cardigan who led his Light Brigade into the withering fire of the Russian artillery at Balaclava.

Combat has changed over the centuries, but mistakes, miscommunication, and unexpected events will turn a tide. While treachery with legend such as Ephialtes is rare, giving aid and comfort to the enemy appears to me an everyday occurrence. The true issue is that those who do so have little or no understanding of how they’ve been used to support rather than fight off tyranny.

As I’ve written and said so many times before, the United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic. It is not a democracy, nor did the Founders subscribe to the idea that it should morph into a democracy.  As Franklin said when asked what have you given us, “A republic, if you can keep it”. We’ve not kept it, nor do we admonish those who call this a democracy.

Our children are taught in school that this is a democracy. Our politicians repeat the term so often that I’m given to tears as I hear the words of treachery coming from their mouths. Even those who profess to be patriotic call this a democracy, and in certain cases they call for more of the same nonsense; “direct democracy” is what one personality has been calling for. Some of us actually relish the idea that we don’t strictly adhere to the rule of law, but rather live by the tyranny of an often selfish and ignorant majority.

Patrick Henry warned that “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament”. Yet today, despite the history of the birth of this nation we are cautioned to be respectful as we go before committees of our servants who are plotting to infringe on another right as they conspire with those who clamor for more restrictions, more legislation, and more tyranny for the cause celeb.

As a nation of sovereigns who give enumerated but limited powers to the state, it is not only within our power, but most assuredly our duty “to alter or to abolish” government when it becomes destructive of its defined duties, and restricted power. This seems simple enough to understand as those who wrote the Constitution debated it extensively. The information is readily available to the public. We’re not talking about documents hidden in archives in a locked vault, in a basement at a secure and restricted site.

However, the electorate seems woefully ignorant of what the rule of law is in this nation. If the people I’ve engaged over the last several months are any indication I’m forced to believe that either reading comprehension is embarrassingly low, or these people have no concept of what the law is, and how disregarding it is akin to aiding the enemy.

The gentlemen who debated the tenets of the Constitution had many reservations about the document. If you read the Constitution as it was written along with the Federalist Papers, and the opposing views of the Anti-Constitutionalists you will understand what we’ve fallen to today.

If you listen to the justices of the Supreme Court, men like Lawrence Tribe, and Alan Dershowitz you can only conclude that our current system of law is akin to Thunderdome. It’s a battle with no rules. Anything goes, and the state can change on a whim, or the idiotic agenda of some group that screams loudly for more subservience.

We have a population that has been led to believe that we have a “living Constitution” not only because they’ve been saturated with that lie, but because they do not even care enough to read the Constitution and related documents. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

As I write this there are shows on CNN, MSNBC, GCN Live, Republic Broadcasting, and hundreds of radio stations spouting propaganda, and illogic. Make no mistake that there is plenty of truth coming from the “alternative media”, but they have no clue as to how to attack the problems we face.  Trying to wake up the majority who will always vote with their stomachs rather than their minds is, at this point in time, a futile enterprise. I don’t say that lightly, but with the knowledge that the proclaimed leaders of the patriot movement display, there is little evidence that they subscribe to, or broadcast the fact that it is the good People of this nation who have the authority to “execute the Laws of the Union”, and therefore the sovereign power to prosecute those who violate the oath of office.

Those who claim to be patriots are nothing more than manipulated tools, and controlled opposition for those who work at every level to destroy liberty and freedom. One very big problem is that the egos of these so-called patriots are so large, they willingly conspire with the enemy, or they have absolutely no analytical skills. Of course there is always the monetary issue that rears its ugly head. Memberships and contributions to the cause place a lot of people in positions of grandeur.

I have engaged people at the NRA, GOA, NJ2AS, Oath Keepers, and others I can’t even remember as I attempt to at least have them examine what their agenda is, how it conflicts with logic and sanity, and how for each victory claimed there are at least ten different directions that the power brokers behind the state can move.

There is not a competent general among those who receive the most prominence. However, there have been others who’ve walked towards a solution and risked life and liberty. You might know the name of Bob Shultz, who happens to be a fearless combatant against the state. Several years ago Bob and his friend Roland Croteau held a hunger strike on the steps of the Capitol that was to last until the IRS cited the law, under which the state collects taxes. That was not coming, but a congressman intervened to stop the hunger strike and scheduled a day for the IRS to come forward. That date in June of 2001 was rescheduled to late in September of 2001. On September 11th, the World Trade Center was attacked, and so the IRS was not made to live up to the agreement negotiated by the congressman.

Some year’s back, Bob attempted to bring together several different groups in order to form a cohesive unit whose agenda would be the restoration of true liberty and freedom. He was unsuccessful, as none of the groups would band together.

I thought it was a brilliant idea. The law is clear as to who holds the power of the ‘Sword’ in this nation. A strong front by several groups with membership in the millions could bring about significant change.  Once again ego and ignorance thwarted what could have easily been a game changer.

What I’ve noted most from groups such as the NRA, GOA, affiliates, and others involved in the 2nd Amendment issue, is an illogical avoidance of the one thing that might change the gun debate issue; Militia.

If I engage people from any of these organizations on the topic of the need to revitalize the Militia, it’s as if I’m speaking a totally foreign language. I dare say that all these brave patriots are not that at all because they would be stepping forward and demanding that the state legislatures revitalize the Militia.

In fact, I’ve been told by some to watch my words, and on the forum of one organization I was told that I wasn’t wanted there because “we could get in trouble just for talking about this”.

One question I’m always asked is, what you have done. Most notably, I’ve actually applied to the governor of New Jersey under the proper statutes, Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia, to enroll me in the Constitutional Militia, and I’ve attempted to organize others to the cause of enforcing the law.

I’ve unsuccessfully reached out to a number of groups, those with an audience, and individuals who instead of examining the facts they show their lack of integrity through ridicule rather than directly answering my pleas for them to work to revitalize the clearly defined laws that the Founders codified. As a replacement for the wisdom and experience of our Founders, they waste valuable time repeating that the “British are coming”, or with inane attempts to educate people who don’t know the difference between an assault rifle, and its civilian counterpart.

However, let me tell you what I haven’t done.

I haven’t ignored the historically abundant statutes and clearly enumerated powers of the duties of Militia.

I haven’t misled the public by claiming that the codified power of the Militia is an act of violence.

I haven’t deceived the people into believing that doing the same thing over and over is anything but insanity.

I haven’t made claims of victory while the rights of millions are licensed, or regulated away in places such as CT, NY, CA, and on.

I haven’t claimed scenarios and strategies as solutions that do not match the power monopoly that we’ve abandoned to the state.

I haven’t claimed any victory when it is clear that we have not indicted, prosecuted, and incarcerated one violator of the oath of office.

I haven’t claimed a mass awakening when just a tiny few will acknowledge or embrace the proper procedures to “execute the Laws of the Union”.

I have not conspired with the state by failing to hold them to the law of the land that calls for the popular sovereignty of the People to be validated and enforced.

I have not demanded that others uphold their oath while I ignore mine as an able-bodied man with the power and duty to “execute the Laws of the Union”.

I have not conspired with the state by acknowledging that appointed bureaucrats of “men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.

And most assuredly, I do not subscribe to a strategy that my children and grandchildren are fodder for a war of information until we convince a super majority that we need “to alter or to abolish” a government destructive of our rights.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government”, wrote Thomas Paine. If that be the benchmark for those who claim to be of the same mind as the men and women who fought for and institutionalized a nation of popular sovereignty, we have few who are truly patriots, but many who “give aid and comfort to the enemy” be it willingly or otherwise.

Nicholas Testaccio                                                                                              Part 2