That’s just openers on the unconstitutional activity that has taken place over the last couple of decades:

Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq

The Patriot Act

National Defense Authorization Act

Fast and Furious

Department of Homeland Security

In addition to the billions of bullets that government agencies have recently ordered, the DHS has also acquired over 2,700 Armored Urban Tanks.

We’re still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and droning women and little children in Pakistan. We destroyed Libya, are working on Iran and North Korea, planning a deployment in Africa, and are pressing for an invasion of Syria to save those poor people from Al Qaeda insurgents that we created, funded, and instigated.

Those are just a few of the questionable activities that we’ve seen over the past years. If you added to that list the fact that Kimmel and Short were made scapegoats at Pearl Harbor to hide FDR’s actual plan, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was pure fiction, and the US Liberty false flag attack then you get to thinking. How far will government agents go to obtain some nefarious agenda?

Would they allow the destruction of a good part of the fleet and the death of some 2,500 military to bring us into a war that the American people had no stomach for at the time?

Would they create a story about an incident that never took place so that they could get us into a war to fight communism?

Would they allow one of our communication ships to be bombed by an ally in order to create a fictitious reason for war in the Middle East?

Add to all of this the growing gang problem, both on the street and even in the military , fueled by a good deal of help from our own government, and this country has the potential to explode to levels of violence that would rival World War II.

In the midst of the government arming to the teeth, false flag operations, gangs, unlawful wars, and who knows what else brewing below the surface, we have constitutionally disrespectful imbeciles such as Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and other’s calling for the disarmament of the American people.

Would they, those people who run around the halls of government plotting this, and scheming that, slaughter little children sitting in a school in order to obtain the ultimate agenda?

With that question comes more questions. We have noting but questions as the rollout of the typical gun control advocates press their agenda.

Why can’t we see the footage from the Sandy Hook school?

Why is it that the stories given by witnesses and police always differ?

Why can’t we see some autopsy results?

Why can’t we find out who the men were that the police captured in the woods behind the school?

Why are the parents of the victims being sequestered by the police?

I’m sure that you can think of many more questions. The point is that in the midst of everything that is happening we have very suspicious goings-on that are not fully explained.

If you don’t know that the unemployment numbers, the housing numbers are either faked, or manipulated, and the stock market is bolstered by pouring hundreds of Billions of dollars of stimulus into a black hole of numbers that can’t possibly make any sense then you’re living under a rock.

If you can’t reconcile the fraud that takes place in the most obvious venues, such as the weekly and monthly government numbers, what are you going to believe when someone tells you that there are questions about an incident that is related to making sure that you can’t fight back when you finally wake up?

‘Nick’

The Economic Collapse

Why are some of the biggest names in the corporate world unloading stock like there is no tomorrow, and why are some of the most prominent investors on Wall Street loudly warning about the possibility of a market crash?  Should we be alarmed that the big dogs on Wall Street are starting to get very nervous?  In a previous article, I got very excited about a report that indicated that corporate insiders were selling nine times more of their own shares than they were buying.  Well, according to a brand new Bloomberg article, insider sales of stock have outnumbered insider purchases of stock by a ratio of twelve to one over the past three months.  That is highly unusual.  And right now some of the most respected investors in the financial world are ringing the alarm bells.  Dennis Gartman says that it is time to “rush to the sidelines”, Seth Klarman is warning about “the un-abating risks of collapse”, and Doug Kass is proclaiming that “we’re headed for a sharp fall”.  So does all of this mean that a market crash is definitely on the way?  No, but when you combine all of this with the weak economic data constantly coming out of the U.S. and Europe, it certainly does not paint a pretty picture.

According to Bloomberg, it has been two years since we have seen insider sales of stock at this level.  And when insider sales of stock are this high, that usually means that the market is about to decline…

Corporate executives are taking advantage of near-record U.S. stock prices by selling shares in their companies at the fastest pace in two years.

There were about 12 stock-sale announcements over the past three months for every purchase by insiders at Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) companies, the highest ratio since January 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Pavilion Global Markets. Whenever the ratio exceeded 11 in the past, the benchmark index declined 5.9 percent on average in the next six months, according to Pavilion, a Montreal-based trading firm.

But it isn’t just the number of stock sales that is alarming.  Some of these insider transactions are absolutely huge.  Just check out these numbers…

Among the biggest transactions last week were a $65.2 million sale by Google Inc.’s 39-year-old Chief Executive Officer Larry Page, a $40.1 million disposal by News Corp.’s 81- year-old Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and a $34.2 million sale from American Express Co. chief Kenneth Chenault, who is 61. Nolan Archibald, the 69-year-old chairman of Stanley Black & Decker Inc. who plans to leave his post next month, unloaded $29.7 million in shares last week and Amphenol Corp. Chairman Martin Hans Loeffler, 68, sold $27.5 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, 57, announced plans to sell as many as 3.2 million shares in the operator of the world’s most-popular search engine. The planned share sales, worth about $2.5 billion, represent about 42 percent of Schmidt’s holdings.

So why are all of these very prominent executives cashing out all of a sudden?

That is a very good question.

Meanwhile, some of the most respected names on Wall Street are warning that it is time to get out of the market.

For example, investor Dennis Gartman recently wrote that the game is “changing” and that it is time to “rush to the sidelines”…

“When tectonic plates in the earth’s crust shift earthquakes happen and when the tectonic plants shift beneath our feet in the capital markets margin calls take place. The tectonic plates have shifted and attention… very careful and very substantive attention… must be paid.

“Simply put, the game has changed and where we were playing a ‘game’ fueled by the monetary authorities and fueled by the urge on the part of participants to see and believe in rising ‘animal spirits’ as Lord Keynes referred to them we played bullishly of equities and of the EUR and of ‘risk assets’. Now, with the game changing, our tools have to change and so too our perspective.

“Where we were buyers of equities previously we must disdain them henceforth. Where we were sellers of Yen and US dollars we must buy them now. Where we had been long of gold in Yen terms, we must shift that and turn bullish of gold in EUR terms. Where we might have been ‘technically’ bullish of the EUR we must now be technically and fundamentally bearish of it. The game board has been flipped over; the game has changed… change with it or perish. We cannot be more blunt than that.”

That is a very ominous warning, but he is far from alone.  Just the other day, I wrote about how legendary investor Seth Klarman is warning that the collapse of the financial markets could happen at literally any time…

“Investing today may well be harder than it has been at any time in our three decades of existence,” writes Seth Klarman in his year-end letter. The Fed’s “relentless interventions and manipulations” have left few purchase targets for Baupost, he laments. “(The) underpinnings of our economy and financial system are so precarious that the un-abating risks of collapse dwarf all other factors.”

Other big hitters on Wall Street are ringing the alarm bells as well.  For example, Seabreeze Partners portfolio manager Doug Kass recently told CNBC that what he is seeing right now reminds him of the period just before the crash of 1987…

“I’m getting the ‘summer of 1987 feeling’ in the U.S. equity market,” Kass told CNBC, “which means we’re headed for a sharp fall.”

And of course the “perma-bears” continue to warn that the months ahead are going to be very difficult.  For instance, “Dr. Doom” Marc Faber recently said that he “loves the high odds of a ‘big-time’ market crash“.

Another “perma-bear”, Nomura’s Bob Janjuah, is convinced that the stock market will experience one more huge spike before collapsing by up to 50%…

I continue to believe that the S&P500 can trade up towards the 1575/1550 area, where we have, so far, a grand double top. I would not be surprised to see the S&P trade marginally through the 2007 all-time nominal high (the real high was of course seen over a decade ago – so much for equities as a long-term vehicle for wealth creation!). A weekly close at a new all-time high would I think lead to the final parabolic spike up which creates the kind of positioning extreme and leverage extreme needed to create the conditions for a 25% to 50% collapse in equities over the rest of 2013 and 2014, driven by real economy reality hitting home, and by policymaker failure/loss of faith in “their system”.

So are they right?

We will see.

At the same time that many of the big dogs are pulling their money out of the market, many smaller investors are rushing to put their money back in to the market.  The mainstream media continues to assure them that everything is wonderful and that this rally can last forever.

But it is important to keep in mind that the last time that Wall Street was this “euphoric” was right before the market crash in 2008.

So what should we be watching for?

As I have mentioned before, it is very important to watch the financial markets in Europe right now.

If they crash, the financial markets in the U.S. will probably crash too.

And the financial markets in Europe definitely have had a rough week.  Just check out what happened on Thursday.  The following is from a report by CNBC’s Bob Pisani…

Italy, Germany, France, Spain, U.K., Greece, and Portugal all on track to log worst day since Feb. 4. European PMI numbers were disappointing, with all major countries except Germany reporting numbers below 50, indicating contraction.

What does this mean? It means Europe remains mired in recession: “The euro zone is on course to contract for a fourth consecutive quarter,” Markit, who provides the PMI data, said. A new insight is that France is now joining the weakness shown in periphery countries.

You’re giving me agita: Italy was the worst market, down 2.5 percent. The CEO of banking company, Intesa Sanpaolo, said Italy’s recession has been so bad it could cause a fifth of Italian companies to fail, noting that topline for those bottom fifth have been shrinking 35 to 45 percent. Italian elections are this weekend.

It wasn’t any better in Asia. The Shanghai Index had its worst day in over a year, closing down nearly three percent.

And the economic numbers coming out of the U.S. also continue to be quite depressing.

On Thursday, the Department of Labor announced that there were 362,000 initial claims for unemployment benefits during the week ending February 16th.  That was a sharp rise from a week earlier.

But I am not really concerned about that number yet.

When it rises above 400,000 and it stays there, then it will be time to officially become alarmed.

So what is the bottom line?

There are trouble signs on the horizon for the financial markets.  Nobody should panic right now, but things certainly do not look very promising for the remainder of the year.

Copyright 2013 The Economic Collapse

Please visit our new friend at his blog; http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.jp/

By Mike In Tokyo Rogers

When it comes to gun control in the USA the logic of the progressives works in a very curious way. They often like to cherry pick nations from around the world to compare with the USA. One of their favorite nations to use as a comparison is Japan.

The argument goes like this; “Gun crimes are out of control in the United States! In America, over eleven thousand people are killed with guns every year! Japan has strict gun control laws and only a handful of people are killed with guns annually. Therefore Japan proves that gun control works. The United States should have gun control laws like Japan!”

You’ve heard this argument. I’m constantly hearing it; “If the United States were more like Japan”… “If the United States had gun laws like Japan, then gun crimes would virtually disappear.”

Is this true?

Well, it is certainly true that overall Japan is a much safer place than the United States. The data show this to be fact. I would also venture to say that, in many ways, it would be better if the United States and American people were more like Japan and the Japanese people. But I suppose that’s a samurai sword that cuts both ways; there are plenty of unfortunate things about Japan and the Japanese that sometimes make me wish it were more like the USA and American people.

Is directly comparing Japan’s gun laws and crime rate with the USA a good and logical comparison? Does this make sense? Are the progressives bringing up a point that is difficult to argue against? Can we make an apples-to-apples comparison using Japan against the USA?

The answer is no. Unfortunately for the progressives, we can’t sensibly make that comparison and I want to show you why it’s absurd to even consider it. The only things that might make sense in a Japan versus USA comparison might have to do with economics, automobiles, love of sushi and baseball (and I’m not so sure about the baseball part). If we are talking about gun control, crimes, or even universal health care, Japan and the United States are two animals that are as different as night and day.

Let me show you why and then when anyone makes this sort of comparison, you should smile and remind them of these few points…

You want to compare the United States to Japan?

The United States is a country that isn’t even 250 years old.

Japan has been a nation for over 2,700 years.

The United States is a nation of citizens that came from all over the world. Pureblood Native Americans account for a mere 0.9% of the total population.

Japan is a nation that consists of 98.5% of the population as being pureblood native Japanese. These Japanese people are descendants from those folks who came here 30,000 years ago.

Some people consider that the USA has a huge immigration problem. In the United States, there are estimates of up to 20 million illegal aliens in the country.

Japan is not known to have an immigration problem. Japan is extremely strict on immigration. About 150,000 people per year are allowed to immigrate to this country.

Any child born in the USA is automatically awarded citizenship even if that child’s mother is in the country illegally. This accounts for about 380,000 new Americans annually.

Just because you were born in Japan doesn’t mean that you can get Japanese citizenship. Even those living here today, as permanent residents, whose grandparents were brought to Japan as slaves from Korea or Taiwan over one hundred years ago, are not given Japanese citizenship upon birth.

“Cultural Identity” and “United States of America” are not words that I often note in the same sentence. The United States is a good example of a country that is considered a “Melting pot.”

The Japanese have an extremely strong cultural identity. Japan is a good example of one of the world’s few homogenous societies.

The United States was born in a revolution against a monarchy and all through its history it has had a civilian population that has always been well armed.

Japan was a caste society for thousands of years. The people – the peasantry – have never been armed. There was never any idea of democracy in feudal Japan and the people never considered rising up against the aristocrats and the warlords.

The United States was also founded on the principle that “All men are created equal.”

In Japan’s feudal caste society, 98% of the population was the peasantry; the remaining two percent were aristocrats, warriors and merchants. People were far from equal.

In the United States, the law of the land, written in the 1780s, says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. People in the United States have a history of a country awash with guns.

In ancient Japan, the people were not even allowed to carry swords. The Great Sword Hunt was carried out in 1588 and disarmed everyone. The only ones who were ever allowed to carry arms were the warrior class. Guns? What guns?

According to the Global Peace Index, the United States ranks a lowly 88th place (One rank above the People’s Republic of China). Japan is ranked as the 5th most peaceful nation in the world.

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, in 2012, the USA had 56,600,000 people on some sort of government financial assistance.

According to Japan’s Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, as of June 2012, there were 2,115,477 people on some sort of government financial assistance.

In the USA, the official numbers show unemployment at 7.8% of the population. Unofficially, according to Shadow Stats, the unemployment rate is about 23%.

In Japan official unemployment stands at about 4.2%. Unofficially it is at 5.7%.

And that’s just a few of the big differences. There’s much more but I think you get the picture,

Now, you tell me, after considering the above, is comparing Japan and the United States fair when it comes to gun control or even Universal Health Care?

Can we find a cure for gun crime in the United States by looking at how another country with a vastly different history, culture and people with a completely different experience have dealt with it or do we have to look within ourselves and our own nation?

Could it be that the gun crimes and murder rate in the USA have little to do with the numbers of guns and everything to do with what Henson Ong said at a gun violence prevention public hearing said,

    “Gun control does not work. Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, Boy Scout marksmanship merit badges. You could buy rifles at hardware stores. You could order them – mail order them – delivered to your home. Your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition. And yet, in your past, you did not have mass shootings… What changed? It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually decreased… What changed was societal decay…”

I think it must be pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it when talking about gun control and crimes (or even universal health care) comparing the United States to Japan is like comparing a steak barbeque to a slice of fish.

Men may be from Mars, and women are from Venus, but never forget that the Japanese are most definitely from Japan… Americans are from who-knows-where and that’s why they are hard to compare.

And that’s just the way it is.

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com.

What I am is tired. I’m frustrated, I’m angry, I’m sick of those who do not know or understand the law of the land, all the horrific acts of corruption, and tyranny, but are more than happy to label.

The United States of America was truly a great experiment in freedom. The concept was liberty and justice for all.

The idea that came from years of denied redress, the Declaration of Independence, the revolution, and the debates leading up to the ratification of the Constitution was to create a limited government that was to be controlled by a federation of states whose primary function was the protection of the individual’s rights.

I am disturbed that in our present day those who believe themselves to be intelligent are so far off the meaning of independence that any argument to the contrary falls short of hitting its mark. The mark is to convince the subject that their idea of freedom falls far from the needs, desires, hopes of the human spirit, and what our Founders intended.

If the minds of the public are so closed, or rather attuned to the concept that if you’ve heard it on the tube, read it in the ‘news paper’, a history book, heard it from a politician, a teacher, or judge then it must be true, then the battle for truth is exhausting.

For instance, as I’ve repeated here many times in the past, this nation is a Constitutional Federal Republic. It is not open for debate. It has, however, become a topic for controversy based on what the majority believes it is today.

The United States of America became a democracy through the maneuvers of the truly bigoted, corrupt, and evil people who took power with a long process of misinformation, and backhanded deals. It grew through the ignorance of the public, corruption of the judiciary, and dishonesty in our education system.

If we move forward from the point of fact that this form of government is something other than what is believed, then we must conclude that our freedom was, at some point stolen from us.

Who stole it? The politician, the judge, the police officer, the teacher, our neighbor, the misguided and dishonest mainstream media, or perhaps it was a combination of all.

Think of the magnitude of this conspiracy. It’s simple enough to conclude that this is at least some form of republic; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” – Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

It’s also simple enough to deduce that the Founders would not have given us a democracy:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

The man considered the father of the American Revolution Samuel Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

To convince the public of the virtues of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

So if you are willing to do just a modicum of reading and research we can honestly determine that this is not a democracy, but rather a federation of states, based in the rule of law as a republican form of government; a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Be honest with yourself. If you can’t, then don’t bother to go further on because you are one of the many lost souls convinced by the numerous conspiracies that this nation is something other than its original design.

Think of the depth of this conspiracy. Each time a politician speaks the word democracy he disavows our form of government. Each time an historian, or teacher utters the word democracy they corrupt the minds of the uneducated. And each time a journalist turns a blind eye to the fraud they validate the lie.

It’s clear that if you’ve read and understood the history of the world, and the evolution from a lawful society to a legal society you’re considered a nut. That is to say that if you believe in the rule of law, and the sovereignty of the People as stated in the Declaration of Independence then there is no place for you in this society; you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

If you are knowledgeable of the fact that armed government agents operating under ‘color or law’, paranoia, and bigotry exterminated over 260 million unarmed people in the Twentieth Century then the modern day thinker has no use for you. Even though the historical record documents the atrocities, and corroborates your statements; you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

History is filled with conspiracy. It is the norm, not the aberration, but talk of conspiracy and you’re labeled something that most believe to be very unflattering.

However, consider these few instances:

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

Remember the Maine

Gulf of Tonkin

USS Liberty

Kennedy Assassination

Violent Crime

Consider one of the most obvious conspiracies out there for everyone to see, but few to understand, or even acknowledge. The Federal Reserve System is not federal at all, but rather the “money trust of big banks” that controls our monetary system.

Then there is the most vicious, and corrupt application of the income tax, to which every federal prosecutor, and judge conspires to help rob us of our wealth by keeping us in fear of the IRS. The income tax is at best questionable on almost every level; ratification, application, and enforcement.

Bill Benson presented to the courts, and the congress 17,000 certified documents showing that the Sixteenth Amendment was not lawfully ratified. Don’t believe Bill alone ask Joe Bannister a former Criminal Investigator for the IRS, or Larry Becraft a prominent tax attorney.

History is filled with conspiracies. Most recently the DOJ was caught funneling firearms to Mexican Drug Cartels in order to destroy the Second Amendment in a scheme that was labeled “Fast and Furious”. We lost at least two agents, and hundreds, if not thousands of Mexicans were murdered to promote the agenda to disarm the American people. What makes anyone believe that our government would shed a tear if the lives of twenty little children were sacrificed in order to accomplish a specific goal?

If you understand the lawful, and historical fact that government should not be allowed to have a monopoly of power through the use of armed force, then you are not a progressive thinker.

If you do not want to bind the future to the whims, and fears of the day then society will out you, and label you with a government promoted moniker.

If you understand that the word “reasonable” has no place in the rule of law, and allows government agents to interpret away your rights through ambiguity then you must be made irrelevant so that the sheep can be led to slaughter.

As Thomas Jefferson suggested, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” I suppose that if he were here today, Thomas Jefferson would be labeled a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Nick

Having a child of my own I am still shocked and disgusted by the tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook. However, I am now, days later, weeks later,  equally or more disgusted by the disposition of some of my fellow Americans in retort to this violence.

And even still, what  I find most disgusting and horrifying, than the massacre itself, is the way the mainstream media now glorifies mass shooters, turning them into cult heroes, and even ranking their body counts as a sort of achievement score. The Newtown shooting currently holds the “high score” according to the mainstream media, and they have no problem pushing this kind of junk journalism as long as their teleprompter-reading reporters appear to be convincingly saddened for the cameras.

The Media Once again, sensationalizing that which should not be sensationalized

The amount of disinformation that was dispensed by the media outlets was disgusting and irresponsible at best. The fact that these very same media outlets speculated initially that Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter at Sandy Hook, possibly had Asperger’s Syndrome cast a dark shadow on an already misunderstood disorder.

Asperger’s syndrome or Asperger disorder is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. People who have this disorder have never shown propensities for violent acts.

This disorder differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. The media however, with the spin they put on it, would have you believe that this was a factor in Lanza’s heinous act.

THE ARGUMENT OF GUN CONTROL, Not Drug Control.

All of us, each and every one of us, must ultimately realize that if you take the guns out of the hands of those who abide by the law, and that law of the land is the Constitution, then the only people who will have guns will be those that do not care about the law, rights, nor any other thing that prevents them from using it to harm you or someone else. It is a deception by this countries media outlet to drive you to believe that wickedness and harm befalls only those who live in a society that has guns.  This is a deception you must overcome, and resist because it is simply false.

The times in which we live are filled with atrocities the likes of which most of us could only fathom in deep nightmares while we lay in our beds at night. These atrocities happen every day in other countries across the world, and the overwhelming majority of those do not involve guns. These atrocities involve political intimidation for private gain, kidnapping, torture, rape, mutilation, the murder of women, and children. In many cases entire families are destroyed.  Genocide is an everyday word in much of the world.

Guns are not the problem in our country. And simply speaking, gun control is not the answer to be safer in everyday life this is a misconception plain and simple. When evil strikes, blame should not be placed solely on the instrument, or tool of delivery. This is naive at best. Placing blame is an exercise in futility. What we should in fact be doing, is searching for the root cause of rampages such as this.

Why isn’t it that an inherently violent society is given the blame? Why aren’t the designers of violent video games that are sold to very innocent children receiving blame? What about the parents of those youngsters who are still growing in body and spirit, and susceptible to influence watching out for their child’s mental stability? What about the culture of violent music? Why not the bullies in school? Should we not be looking at abusive parents, relatives or neighbors? Why are guns the primary target of blame? In my opinion this is simply placing blame that is based on emotion and lack of thought. Why aren’t all the other factors being considered as the cause of these tragedies?  Why aren’t we also blaming the failures of society?

More importantly, why aren’t some of the psychotropic drugs that are dispensed blamed?  I’ll tell you why. Because it’s a lot easier to find a scapegoat, move on, and shove the real problem under the rug. Guns don’t make millions for the pharmaceutical companies that enable the government to numb the minds of the public.

One example of these drugs I reference is Iloperidone, otherwise known as “Fanapt”, which is used in the treatment of Schizophrenia. It seems now that Lanza was allegedly prescribed this drug.

I can only hope that this news article is disinformation because if it is not then the FDA, as well as the manufacturer of the drug, as far as I am concerned, are responsible for the deaths in Newton, CT.

Similarly, James Holmes known as the Aurora, Colorado shooter was allegedly under the influence of Vicodin on the night of his rampage. His defense is arguing that he was in fact getting psychiatric help prior to his rampage. The Prosecution wants this left out of the case…why is that? One could argue because they want Holmes to fry. Perhaps justifiably so, but isn’t it better to have a full understanding of what causes a person to go on a rampage in the first place? Vicodin as well has some very interesting side effects. But let’s blame the guns, alone.

Let’s consider the following; airlines now have sky marshals on planes. Here we have a deterrent that seems to be working.  It’s been quite some time since a hijacking has taken place. So, let us consider this. Why not have one or two individuals in every school who are qualified with firearms; teachers, administrators, or even maintenance? Individuals, which have the proper training in the matter and know how to deal with such a situation?

The Second Amendment, It’s outdated!

I was going to avoid getting into a lengthy explanation of why the 2nd amendment is in our constitution. To me, this is something every citizen of the country should understand, but surprisingly, most do not. Our second amendment right is in place not only to protect our person, possessions, and family it is there PRIMARILY to protect us from tyranny. There is no “gun right” debate, there is only the Constitution that states that we all have a right to bear arms and we do so for multiple reasons. It is not a DEBATE; don’t let the media trick you into thinking it is. It is written into our rights as United States citizens and it was done so for a very, very good reason. There is no debate.

What is key here is The “Well Regulated Militia”. I want to place some emphasis on this. I have had the debate with individuals regarding the Second Amendment. The argument that the amendment was written a long time ago, when the inhabitants of this nation needed a means by which to fight of the British is naive, and short sighted. Our founding fathers knew that power tends to become corrupt. People with power tend to become corrupt. It is and always shall be important that the law abiding citizens of this country always have the means by which to fight tyranny. END OF STORY. If the Gun Control side of this argument wants to trust they’re government unconditionally that is fine with me. I cannot. I am also a big believer in history, and that those that who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it.

A quote from the film “Fail safe” from 1964 has always wrung in my head as being profound true, and apropos:
“How long would the Nazis have kept it up, General, if every Jew they came after had met them with a gun in his hand?”

I want to emphasize that this is not paranoia. This is once again all about being prepared for the worst. We can always hope the worst does not happen, but if it does, is it not better to be prepared for it as best one can? Our forefathers knew this, and we should thank them for the wisdom that they left in that document we call “Our Constitution”

I strongly feel that what should happen here is that more “Law Abiding” people should be allowed to carry their firearms. Those law abiding citizens should be allowed into more places with less restrictions so they can counteract people like Lanza, or James Holmes.  Individuals like Lanza, and Holmes do not care for law. Individuals like Lanza, and Holmes will seek to hurt, harm, injure or kill those who cannot defend themselves by virtue of the fact that the typical law abiding citizen will be limited by laws and rules that are too restrictive. Lanza planned this rampage. He knew that there would be no opposition at all. He knew that because anyone teaching, or in some way employed at the school would NEVER be allowed to carry a firearm, and in knowing this he knew he could walk in freely, and kill as many people as he saw fit, unchallenged until the armed response arrived. The gun laws of this great country should be changed. They should be relaxed so that law abiding citizens of this country can go back to defending their own lives, and those of other innocents instead of having to rely on hostage teams, and local police to decide whether they live or die.
Interestingly enough as I write this article, I find that just a short while ago this news headline emerges; “White House readies gun-control plan as more children laid to rest”. But Am I worried. No! The Obama supporters I know out there, who praise this POTUS as the best president since….. They never mention another, have assured me this will never happen. That this administration has no interest in gun control or gun banning.

In closing, and on a personal note, I am a gun owner and I wouldn’t say I’m living in fear. I don’t really spend time worrying about what is going to happen. But I am a big believer that it is better to be prepared.  I am certainly a “better safe than sorry” individual.

It gives me a certain measure of comfort knowing that if some psychopath breaks into my home intending to do harm, I at least have a chance to try and do something about it.  I find it somewhat disturbing that there are those that would strip me of my right to defend myself, or my family.

‘Gary’

There are several questions that come to mind when considering the judicial system. The first of which is whether or not it conforms to the mandates and restrictions set forth in Article III of the Constitution? Then I must ask if it sets itself within the original idea that it was to protect the People from the transgressions of the executive, and legislative branches?

More importantly has it procured authorities that it was never granted? The powers of interpretation, and fiat are not enumerated anywhere.

Robert Yates writing in opposition to the language and meanings of the proposed Constitution wrote, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.” The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the law. The law as established through the Declaration of Independence comes solely within the jurisdiction of the People as they granted limited powers to the government to perform very few specific tasks.

I would also like to note that the parameters of whether the rule is federal or local are specious arguments that are designed to obfuscate the obligation of the People’s servants; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—.” The state, as an instrument created by the People, did not create the federal government, in turn, with a completely different operating paradigm.

The distinction made between federal and state disregards the fact that every individual that is in some way attached to a function of government must swear an oath to the Constitution. It also ignores the law enforcement authority of the People as explained through the function of the Militia. Did the People leave themselves bare to local tyranny, but not federal? No! The servants in our form of government, be it local or federal, should be working overtime to protect our rights, or else be subject to our rule of law.

The argument of federal and state is made, in my opinion, to denigrate our unalienable rights by making the fallacious claims that the state has no obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights, and that instead of securing “these rights” the state governments may by acts of the local legislature convert them to privileges. Or as some would say, we operate under De Facto law; exercising power as if legally constituted.

Did some of the most brilliant philosophical and political minds of any time mean to protect the People from the federal government, but make no such restrictions upon the local governments? It is without logic, and has no reconciliation in the build up that initiated the Declaration of Independence, and the ratification of the Constitution.

In addition, the arguments create a miasma of legal definitions, precedents, twists, and turns that are ultimately designed to centralize powers to the federal government. When the judiciary interprets the law, such as its wildly inaccurate and unlawful claim that the “general welfare” clause gives government powers not listed, it is taking power from the People, and transfers it to the government.

Madison clarified the meaning of “general welfare” by stating, “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it. . . . But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”

However, from the very outset, and over the decades we have allowed the judiciary to make outlandish claims of interpretations that render the Constitution and the power of the People moot. Robert Yates went on to say, “[the authors of the constitution] have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

The inevitable conclusion is that the legal profession through its brotherhood can, and will establish an autocracy with divine powers equivalent to the system we fought to overturn.

In the “Rights of Man” Thomas Paine writes, “There was a time when Kings disposed of their Crowns by will upon their deathbeds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed.”

Paine goes on to say, “The laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle. In England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or controul the personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?”

With each passing decision rendered by the judiciary, that body of men and women trained in the law have consigned not only you and I, but also our progeny to terms and conditions that jeopardize, or abolish our natural rights.

It should be obvious that when one right is deemed subject, then all rights are at risk of the interpretations established in the first case. It is a slow and inconspicuous erosion of rights geared toward the centralization and monopoly of power.

Remember that the legal system is a contained unit of those who learn the law as it is ever changing by their own hands. That is to say that those people who write the laws, interpret the laws, and validate the laws also teach the next generation that the law is correct in whatever context the court deems appropriate. How could anything be more insidious, and unethical? I speak therefore it is so, as in the divine right of kings.

In my opinion, a good deal of the danger that our unalienable rights now suffer is from the wrangling of that body of men and women sworn to the allegiance of the courts. What do we do as the states have completely abdicated their duty to protect our rights?

We have enumerated in the Bill of Rights that the Grand Jury, and the Jury are amongst the most notable of our unalienable rights.

Thomas Jefferson stated, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams said, “It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Our first Chief Justice, John Jay wrote, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

If this is indeed a responsibility of the jury as stated by our founders, how can the judiciary remove this authority? Are not the People, with whom all sovereignty lies, expressing their inherent power by nullifying those actions believed to be contrary, even dangerous to the well being of the People?

If the courts take away the power of the Jury to nullify unconstitutional acts, then what recourse is left to us?

Some would say that the ballot box is the answer, but there is ever the issue of fraud as pointed out at Black Box Voting. The media was declaring Obama a victor in states where he was clearly behind, or there was no count at all. The vote tallies in no way matched the preceding polls. In every district where an ID was required, Obama lost. In many districts, Romney received no votes at all, and there is at least one recorded instance where a voter saw his vote change on the screen from Romney to Obama.

Some would say that we have the bullet box when all else fails. Do we really want to have that fight? And if we had that in the back of our minds why would we allow the very people we will be facing in combat to disband our militias, or administratively hinder the flow of the weapons we would need to engage an established military force? For that matter why do we allow a standing army to exist contrary to our fundamental doctrine?

As with any case concerning the erosion of rights, it has been gradual, and accomplished with the willingness of the ignorant public. Too many of our fellow citizens would give up freedom for some false sense of security. Many, I believe, have an innate hatred of those who disdain the idea of a controlling government, and self rule. Other’s are simply incapable of independent thought and just parrot what they hear on the boob tube.

At this point in time we are ‘Without Rule of Law’. We have abandoned most of our freedom to regulations, license, fear, and ambivalence. We need to strike out immediately in order to turn the tide. I believe in the jury as the first step.

When we enter the jury box we should be cognizant of the duty placed upon us by the fact that we have the responsibility to protect our rights at all cost. We are not given rights by mere words, but rather we exercise and maintain them by our actions.

Our actions, while in the jury box, are to tell the judge, and the state that we will not condone your unlawful acts. We will stand firm, and declare that the actions of the state are unlawful by being outside the powers we have given to you. You, the state, are not above our authority, and we will act in accordance with the rule that established this nation of free and sovereign People.

We will not succeed in this supposed great ‘awakening’ where there is no concept of the battle in front of us. We can make no headway shouting out that this person is evil, or that person is the devil incarnate.

We have a ‘Rule of Law’, and that rule is straightforward. We may from time to time “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is the essence of this nations foundation. It is our law. It is the only law that counts. And when you are called for the duty to sit in the jury box, exercise your authority. Know your responsibility to the accused, to yourself, and your posterity. Stare down the face of tyranny to boldly state that this is your court. It is not a court of the state, but rather an institution devised for the proper dissemination of justice.

It is all we have left before we are forced to the bullet box.

‘Nick’

We would like to thank Mr. William Norman Grigg for his permission to post his article.

“They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own,” intoned the murderer of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as he began the liturgy of official mourning for the victims of the Newtown massacre.

Every time children die in an outbreak of violence, “I react not as a president, but as anybody else would as a parent,” continued the head of a regime that will not explain to Nasser al-Awlaki why his son Anwar and grandson Abdulrahman – both of the U.S. citizens – were murdered by presidential decree.

“We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years,” insisted the official who has presided over dozens of lethal drone attacks in Pakistan and other countries with whom the U.S. is not formally at war.

Tears welled up in Obama’s eyes as he pronounced the familiar, facile phrases of selective sympathy. After ordering that U.S. flags be flown at half-staff for a week, Obama said that he and his wife would hug their children a little closer tonight as he empathizes with the parents whose children were murdered in Newtown.

It’s doubtful that he was moved to similar thoughts of vicarious bereavement as he contemplated the parents in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan who have been left childless because of his actions.

Shortly after the police had arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary School to offer the service they always provide in such circumstances – that is, drawing chalk outlines and stringing up crime-scene tape – Mr. Obama was informed of the massacre. The minion who conveyed that news to the Child Killer-in-Chief was National Security Adviser John Brennan, who is the official Keeper of the “Kill List” – the roster of people, including U.S. citizens, who have been targeted for summary execution by a secretive executive branch committee.

Last April, in response to modest but growing public outrage over the Obama Regime’s use of killer drones, Brennan gave an opaque and self-congratulatory speech insisting that the program was legal because those who preside over it consider it to be.

Killing distant, unarmed people by way of robot-delivered missiles is “legal, ethical, and wise,” he declared. The targeted execution of individuals deemed to be terrorists –without the benefit of trial or any simulacrum of due process – is the result of careful “deliberation,” and conducted in a way that discriminates between combatants and bystanders.

This must mean that Barack Obama and the people who are sufficiently foolish and depraved to obey his orders intended to kill 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki while he was enjoying a backyard barbecue at the home of a family friend in Yemen.

The Regime has never explained why it murdered that child, let alone apologized to the family for doing so. The closest it has come to an explanation was offered last September by former White House spokesliar (and campaign functionary) Robert Gibbs, who actually claimed that the teenager’s death was his own fault because he had somehow made a poor choice of fathers: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they’re truly concerned about the well-being of their children.”

By default, this is the Obama Regime’s official rationale for murdering an innocent 16-year-old U.S. citizen. How does the logic – such as it is – of Gibbs’s answer differ from whatever rationale drove a maniac to open fire on a kindergarten class in Connecticut? Assuming that the shooter was deranged, he at least had the excuse of insanity.

Obama, Brennan, Gibbs and their allies, by way of contrast, all profess to be entirely sane. The same is true of Time magazine contributor – and prominent Obama supporter – Joe Klein. Late in the last campaign Klein used an MSNBC panel discussion to offer a stout defense of Obama’s drone strikes, even as he admitted that innocent bystanders – including 4-year-olds – are frequently killed by them. The only concern, Klein insisted, was the possibility that the power to conduct remote killings may find itself in the hands of someone less enlightened than Obama.

For the Obama Regime, child-killing is an instrument of policy. This was made clear in a recent story reported by the Military Times describing how U.S. troops in Afghanistan, fearful over the actions of a group of young men nearby called in an airstrike that killed all of the suspected guerillas – only to find out later that three of them were children, aged 8, 10, and 12. The families of the dead children said that they had been gathering dried animal leavings, which are used as fuel.

The International Security Assistance Force in Kabul issued a statement acknowledging that the airstrike “accidentally killed three innocent Afghan children.” That statement prompted Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington to tell the Military Times that the children may not have been innocent.

According to Carrington, whose unit is training Afghan police, “In addition to looking for military-age males, [we are] looking for children with potential hostile intent.” Since hostility is the natural, and entirely commendable, reaction to foreign occupiers, Carrington is saying that any Afghan child with sufficient awareness to resent the occupation is a legitimate military target.

What Adam Lanza did once in a fit of murderous irrationality, the Regime over which Obama presides does practically every day – and the killing is carried out by people who act with clear-eyed, clinical indifference to the suffering they inflict.

Admittedly, that comparison is unfair, since Lanza didn’t have the means to carry out an Obama-style “double-tap” strike: It is the established practice of the CIA to follow up a drone-launched missile attack with a second volley intended to target first responders. In Pakistan, this procedure has resulted in a ratio of fifty innocent victims for every “suspected militant” taken out in a drone strike.

The killer who slaughtered the innocent at Sandy Hook is dead. The Child-Killing Apparatus over which Obama presides continues merrily along. Americans understandably shaken and saddened to the depth of their souls by the horrors in Newtown should consider this: The government that impudently presumes to rule us has made Sandy Hook-style massacres routine for residents of Pakistan.

Regardless of the centuries of history, and in particular the obviously evil actions taken place in the last century by governments around the world you would think that people in general would be very wary about calling for the disarmament of the individual.

There are those who believe that evil has taken over, and that Bible prophecies are coming to fruition. That could account for what we see happening daily, and why media is mute in too many cases.

However, we are told that we are in a real shooting war. That war is the “Global War On Terror”, and the body count in the Middle East grows while the slaughter in less known conflicts continues unabated. And if indeed we are in a “Global War”, is the homeland of the United States immune to that war? Certainly the government does not believe we are as evidenced by the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the growing Department of Homeland Security.

Are the likes of Bob Costas, Sarah Brady, Morris Dees, and Mike Bloomberg completely ignorant of the past, and blind to the present, or are they the emissaries of evil that some believe have taken over?

Are they simply demented individuals who are aware, but seek the consequences of a disarmed populace, and the destruction that typically accompanies? Obviously crimes such as unlawful wars, rendition, genocide, and a host of other atrocities perpetrated in the name of government are of no concern to them.

There is another question about the demand by people like Bob Costas to limit our access to an implement used for self-defense. Does the call, which would be enforced by arms of government agents, rise to the level of treason?

The Constitution reads as follows:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

If we are indeed in this war on “Global War”, and by the actions of government they fully believe that mainland USA is a target, then wouldn’t the disarming of the American people be dangerous, and a military blunder beyond reason?

If the anti-gun crowd wants to disarm the American people, making a safer America for those terrorist invaders, is it not the same as “giving them Aid and Comfort” to the enemy? And if you’ve disarmed the able-bodied man who will “repel Invasions” if not the people forming the Militia? The army, and the National Guard are thousands of miles away, exhausted, and sick from this war of more than 10 years. Even if they were here and healthy, it is not their duty to police the streets it is ours by law.

I am told that we are engaged in a “Global War On Terror”, but I am also told by my beneficent government, and its media allies that I will not be allowed to fight on equal terms. In my eyes this is an agenda with a goal. While we can argue what goal, what is clear is that the disarming of the American people violates their sovereignty, and leaves us open to invasion.

An act of Treason against the United States is defined as such and cognizable under our law. However, treason, in a broader sense is defined as follows:

1. The offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

We start with first principles; “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving

their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Just powers in the case of the United States are defined within the wording of the Constitution. In our peculiar form of government, it is the People whom are the sovereigns granting certain powers that are clearly enumerated under Article 1, Section 8.

As a sovereign, I maintain my right of self-defense. In the history of the world, it is the right of the sovereign to defend against attacks of aggression. I have not relinquished that right to an agency of government, to the state, or any group of individuals who make specious claims about the greater good. My life, liberty, and the defense of my family are my responsibility. If harm comes to me, or another, what relief will the government, or the anti-gunners give? Will they yell and scream at the terrorists? That will provide no comfort to my family or me.

I certainly do not recognize the states insistence that it can regulate or license my ability to defend myself from another sovereign, or an agent of the government claiming powers, and immunity I did not, or will not grant. I will not grant such power because by my acts I will subject my children to whatever potential evil may arise by my missteps.

Do I have a right of self-defense? Do my children have a right to self-defense? Do I have the right to survive, to protect my family, and property? Does the government have the granted authority to limit my rights to self-defense by prescribing what methods I may use to do so? Does the government have the granted authority to diminish my ability to “alter or abolish” it? In cases where it “becomes destructive of these ends” did we ever grant government the authority to limit our own ability to fight on equal terms with equal force of arms?

It is reasonable to conclude that I have the right of self-defense as an individual, and as a sovereign. No one individual, group, or any representative of my authority may disparage my sovereignty, nor jeopardize my right to defend it. It may not be done under the illusion of some public good, and in particular it may not be done to protect the status of government as it infringes upon my unalienable rights.

I have addressed the question of individual sovereignty, and it has been recognized by the courts in the past; “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.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

The rule of law does not change with the whim of the day. This is either a nation of laws established by a sovereign people, or we destroy it on impulse, fears, and ignorance. Either we confirm our authority or we risk our freedom.

I maintain, “sovereignty itself remains with the people”, and I declare to those in opposition that acts to degrade my sovereignty are acts of war, and even if no one would agree on this I must once again point to the “Global War On Terror.”

I truly believe that in our unique form of government that was designed to not only limit, but also prevent the rise of tyranny, those who conspire to use government force to promote their agenda have committed an act of treason.

Our system of government was meant to be a form with as little intervention as possible from agents who are elected or assigned duties. Our founders limited the powers of government to carry out what few tasks we deemed necessary to promote continuity, but more importantly to “secure these rights”, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If we continue to allow people such as Bob Costas to instigate the outlawing of our unalienable rights through fear, and ignorance we will loose what chances we have to dismantle the evil that is promoted by a government that has expanded well beyond its original creation.

Does the sum of these agendas, or questionable acts against freedom constitute a war against my sovereignty, and my liberty? Of course they do, and in that light the goal is “to harm or kill its sovereign”.

We cannot allow the treason that comes from the conspiracies of those who believe that you and I should not be allowed one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence; the right to self-defense as an individual against the thug on the street, or as a sovereign faced with an invading army.

Call it what it is; those who promote the disarming of the Sovereign are representatives of evil whose acts rise to the level of treason.

‘Nick’

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

I’ve eliminated the rhetoric about caring, because as we should know by now, progressives, liberals, or whatever we can label them care nothing about the welfare of the general public. Their concern is to promote a personal agenda no matter how many times it is proven to fail, and no matter what depths to which we are given to sink.

I’ve kept the part wherein he states his goals on the banning of the very guns we would need to own in order to protect ourselves from tyrants. Once again he shows what little knowledge he has of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights by referring to hunting and sports.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is about the rule of law, and our ability to be able to “alter or abolish” the government Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves…

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap handguns…

And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.

I’ve already addressed the issue of “weapons that were designed for soldiers” in The Battlefield and the Civilian Soldier. Now I would like to address the woman who asked the question, and all those who are so anxious to see us disarmed, or believe that “it can’t happen here”.

Madame! Throughout the course of history we have seen slaughter at the hands of government thugs. There has been genocide up till and including this very day. The courts interpret the law to benefit the encroachment of liberty at every chance it is allowed, giving themselves and followers immunity in order to perpetrate whatever atrocity under color of law. And you Madame want to disarm the American people so that if that day comes when all else fails we will have nothing left to do but to beg for mercy?

No Madame, the Second Amendment, and the Militia’s were not formed to control the fiction known as government, but rather to control those who think themselves high above the rest of us. Those who are blind to the truth of tyranny, who refuse to learn from history, and are always so willing to bind the rights of their fellow citizen.

Government does not perpetrate tyranny, for government is a fiction, and works by the hand of the people. Those people may be your neighbor, or even a relative. They go to work much the same as you or I, but they are given a sacred public trust. More often than not that trust is violated, and tyranny flourishes.

Government has no form other than that which comes from the words and actions of individuals. It cannot collect a tax unlawfully. It cannot frame and imprison those who have caused no harm, but simply caught the eye, or ear of someone who assumes a position extraordinary to the rule of law.

Government can do nothing at all, but to be the boogeyman in the closet.

No tyrant has ever marched to victory, weapon in hand as he vanquishes the entire population. He leads followers who have their own sick notion of why we must be chained.

Tens of millions have been slaughtered not by the tyrant, but rather by those in the cloak of people such as you Madame. To make the question and the idea so Orwellian, you have asked it of a man, Barak Obama, who clearly shows that he does not believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and that government is subject to the rule of law.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” When Franklin made that statement, he had you, and the likes of you in mind.

Our forefathers did not go to war to gain freedom so that you could ask for our slavery. So that you could demand I be disarmed, and with no other recourse but to depend on a corrupt judiciary, and ignorant jurors. For it is you, and your mindset that sits in the jury box when the government prosecutor lays claim to an authority that was never granted.

Thomas Paine wrote, “There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controuling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.”

I know what history teaches us, and I know that we are more likely to repeat those mistakes rather than to take affirmative action to rid ourselves of the men and women who thrive on the unlawful, and dangerous acts of the fraudulent notion of government power. Yet, we still have people asking their president, or their representatives to infringe upon not only my rights, but also that of our future generations.

Let us face a fact. Not everyone believes that there is something very wrong with those in government ruling our lives, telling us what we should eat, and drink, or that we must be taxed to the extreme to support programs that render the recipients slaves to the system, and that those taxes must continue to rise so that the contributors are made poorer by relinquishing ever larger portions of the fruits of their labor.

The very same people who believe they have the moral authority to rule our lives have no compunction about leaving us defenseless to their calculations, and the convulsions of the day.

No Madame, I will not be the hand that disarms the People, and I would warn you to be careful of what you wish for.

‘Nick’

In considering what needed to be said in this article I concluded that benefit only comes from the learning experience, and that we are sometimes blinded by our want to validate what perceived good we might have accomplished.

Some of us would be willing to admit our mistakes if for the public good, while others cannot make that leap to the conclusion that missteps of the past are just that; blunders from which we can derive a greater knowledge. For my own part, I am often reticent to admit mistakes openly, but I am constantly working to rectify whatever has gone before while noting that what was done cannot be undone no matter how many tears are shed.

We instituted a government from the ground up where all power is derived from the People. We the People are the Sovereigns. We do not elect, nor appoint sovereigns who are immune to the law, nor are they given the power to interpret what law we have given to them. The law, beginning and ending with a constitution, unalienable rights, and as Blackstone noted, a method where all injuries must have a remedy and relief. In the United States that relief can only come from a jury of peers in a common law court.

When you go to traffic court, is it a court of common law, or is it one where the state has a vested interest in taking your money? It can’t be common law because the state has absolutely no authority in common law other than what it is given by the jury for a particular suit; award the plaintiff, or exonerate the defendant.

Is it an Article III court? While it is a controversy, it is not a controversy of law, but rather a regulation of a right that cannot be infringed. Therefore, the case would not be whether the individual had broken some law, but did the state have the granted power to license and then restrict the freedom of movement.

I could go on to ask where the notion came from that we can have public prosecutors who work for the state to enforce whatever dictum the legislature proposes and passes as law, and then places into that neat index of code so we can easily find out what the government deems we have violated today.

As Timothy Baldwin, JD expressed in his column Be it known to you, O king, “Please understand: the most fundamental and basic natural rights expressed by our forefathers is the right to be governed only by our consent, by a government we have created for our interests; by agents who act in trust of our freedoms, rights and liberties, who are accountable directly to their principals (the people who authorized their power); and by those who have non-conflicting interests to those they represent.”

He goes on to quote from the Second Treatise of Government, “[U]sing force upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people…[and] the people have a right to remove [such a force] by force. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.”

No one is advocating the use of violence, except the state, but we must be reminded from time to time that this country was formed in revolution. Men, and women, shed their blood in order that posterity would share in the freedom our Founders sought, and won by shot and blade.

Should we give it all away by facilitating this, and compromising on that? Are we really of the mind that some pretend benefit comes by giving away, or licensing a natural right such as that of marriage, the right to bear arms, or the right to travel upon the highways at the discretion of some police authority enforcing an unconstitutional act?

Everyone has his or her opinions, and obviously mine are very strong otherwise I would not be writing here. When I refer to law, I attempt to stay within the parameters of what I know to be true; this is a Constitutional Federal Republic that operates by strict enumeration, giving way to common law, which was intended to severely limit the state’s ability to prosecute for matters not delegated such as robbery, assault, or driving down the public roads past a speed limit. The state operates as a clearing-house for the investigations of the Grand Jury, and an enforcer of the petit jury’s decision.

The court may not issue edicts, create law, or give way to acts unless it can reconcile it as a granted power. It cannot sit idly by while the state takes it upon itself to prosecute the citizens it is sworn to protect, while protecting the often thuggish acts of government agents claiming immunity.

I understand how difficult the concept is when you consider violent crime, but when you look into our founding and understand why our Forefathers made the Militia such an intricate part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you might come to a reasonable conclusion. The Militia is the people’s force of law, knowing full well that it would be ever present, unlike the police. It will be available when 911 has you on hold, and will not question your right of self-defense.

Too many supposed experts are given air time to express their views. Those views often follow the road that we’ve allowed the state to pave rather than strictly adhering to the fundamentals of a limited government.

The law is what we, as the sovereigns, say it is, as it can be no other way if we want to maintain freedom. James Madison wrote in Federalist 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Recognizing all the pitfalls, twists, and turns brought about by the bloated court system has prompted me to ask if it is not the People, but rather the state that is ignorant of the law?

Take some time to read, or merely peruse some Supreme Court decisions. You will first find that almost all modern decisions are not unanimous, and almost none clearly define what segment of either the state or federal constitutions the court has recognized.

Controversies in law are elevated to the Supreme Court by questions of constitutionality, and often times by disagreement from the various district courts. So when a jurist says to me “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, my first thought is; what the heck are you talking about?

I understand that if I’ve taken the property of another, or violated someone’s right to life, and liberty I’ve committed a crime. I’ve obviously perpetrated an offense that is cognizable before a jury of my peers. On the other hand I cannot recognize, nor understand an offense such as opening a business without the state’s consent. Where is the harm in that?

For those who claim that business needs to be regulated in order to protect the public good, I would respond that the public health is never relieved by the state that benefits from the fines it procures in its procedures. We have a system of common law wherein the injured party can bring suit, and hopefully be reimbursed for the harm caused by unscrupulous business.

More importantly, in cases arising from controversies with the state’s interpretations, or enforcements of regulations, the People’s ability to obtain remedy is often thrown aside for reasons of compelling interests, national security, or immunity.

Five to Four is an indication to me that an understanding of the law has bypassed the entire court system. Am I to understand that we are to be dependent on an organism where the black robbed autocracy can disagree on what the law is, or where the state procured its legitimate power, but we are none-the-less to be subject to the power that this farce enforces?

Five to Four is what so many of the Supreme Court decisions come down to, and most are along ideological lines rather than the citing of defined powers. Yet there is rejoicing on one side when the highest court in the land renders a favorable decision for some interested party.

If almost Forty-Five Percent of the court could not agree with the decision, how can anyone claim it to be legitimate? No, the court must show absolute agreement based on an enumerated power. The court must be in total agreement that the question has not in any way, shape, or form infringed upon a natural or unalienable right.

It is a simple thing to say that we find that the legislation in question comes under the defined power in Article 1, or that the regulation or rule does not promote the power to prosecute the Sovereign who in the particular quarrel happens to be the People.

It is also quite simple to reconcile whether or not the legislation of one of the state’s does not impose itself upon the rights that our forefathers made the Supreme Law of the Land, or negates its mandate to protect the unalienable rights of the People; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

Logic is the means by which we maintain order. The Universe was formed in logic with certain principles that cannot be overridden by dictum. Just as the entire creation cannot function without logic, neither can a free society.

If my understanding of an act creates a controversy in my mind, and the courts, from one district to the next, and then the Supreme Court has questions, how can anyone hold me responsible for my suspicions, or acts of defiance?

 ‘Nick’