“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 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”.