Restore The Republic,Militia,Constitution,Founding Fathers,Republic

Restore the Republic

The Imperial State

June 6, 2017 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

The United States of America is a Constitutional Federal Republic, wherein all power “to execute the Laws of the Union” is vested in the People in their status as Sovereigns.

This is a long-standing principle of our rule of law as the court had stated in Chisolm v Georgia, “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.”

The Supreme Court later opined, “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

A government so corrupt that it does not resemble that, which the Founders devised, has obfuscated the principles of our law. It is now a government that ignores the doctrine that it “deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed”, and therefore can only operate as that entity the People have the authority “to alter or to abolish.”

The principles of popular sovereignty, and the explicit recognition in the Constitution that it is only the good People that have the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” would be in full force were it not for a completely corrupt judiciary, and its accomplices in the executive, and the legislative branches. Sadly, many groups and organizations of self-proclaimed patriots have also helped to misinform the public.

Mentioning only a small part of the history and law surrounding the fact that this was meant to be “a government of laws, and not of men,” I am perplexed, but not surprised, by a recent statement by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This newly appointed Supreme Court justice does not share a “cynicism about government and the rule of law”.

I wonder if Justice Gorsuch, or the legal profession in general have read the Constitution and understand what it means???

I can state from personal experience that many lawyers, perhaps the vast majority, do not display any indication that they have read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, or any of the ratifying convention debates. Perhaps, if they did, they would then know “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include.” Reading and comprehending what the Founders thought might just preclude a good deal of the judicial tyranny, to which we are now subject.

What lawyers seem to know is what they are told by an Imperial Judiciary. The legal profession, or as some have noted, a good-ole boys club, is a rubber stamp for abuses of power. Rather than questioning, it acts in accordance with decisions of the court, whether or not the court acts to defend the Constitution.

The rule of law be damned is the philosophy of the judiciary. The mission of those who crave power is to circumvent the sovereignty vested in the good People, and centralize it to suit the crazed and corrupt appetite of the few elite who have attained office through whatever perverted means available.

On tape for all to see and hear, Justice Sotomayor states that the role of the court of appeals is to legislate from the bench. Instead of being impeached, Sotomayor was given a seat on the highest court.

The role of the judiciary, for those who can’t comprehend the clear words of the Constitution is to be an advocate for the strict adherence to the rule of law. There is no wording that grants an authority for interpretations by political activist, power hungry black robed administrators and their co-conspirators.

As Alexander Hamilton 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.”

Who would protect our prime doctrine?

Benjamin Austin wrote, “Certain characters now on the stage, we have reason to venerate, but though this country is now blessed with a Washington, Franklin, Hancock and Adams, yet posterity may have reason to rue the day when their political welfare depends on the decision of men who may fill the places of these worthies. . . .”

Who has followed?

Bush, Clinton, Obama, Roberts, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Brown, Ryan, Kasich, just a short list of the many for whom “we have [no] reason to venerate”, or trust at any level. Still we re-elect them, or allow them to sit in positions that they consistently corrupt.

We have a judiciary from the lowest to the highest court filled with those who have no respect at all for the Constitution. We have executive and legislative branches around the nation that act in a manner so contrary to both the federal and state Constitutions that their disrespect and lawlessness is immeasurable.

We have lawyers destroying every principle of law in every branch of government. No one has put it more succinctly than journalist, author, and political commentator H.L. Menchen; “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.”

We were warned from the very beginning.

Robert Yates wrote, as one who opposed the ratification, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control”. He goes on to comment that we will have “a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.”

Yates doesn’t “object to the judges holding their commissions during good behavior. I suppose it a proper provision provided they were made properly responsible.” His acceptance of the “good behavior” premise was obviously made at a different time. The character of men and women were so different than “We the People” of today that it seems more myth than reality.

From the Life and Times of Davy Crockett there is this account that is a testament to how far we have fallen from the values of our forbearers.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’


“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

As you read through the Constitution you will note that the Supreme Court was never granted the delegated authority to legislate, grant immunity, change the restrictions and authorities, or redefine “the sense in which [the words were] generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended”, “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written”, “and the accepted meaning [of the words] in that day.”

“We the People” never granted the authority to the state to alter definitions, promote imperial edicts, establish law enforcement agencies, create powers over and above the sovereignty of the citizen, nor deprive the good People of their ultimate power “to execute the Laws of the Union.”

What we have today is an Oligarchy redefining the foundation of this nation to suit its goal of a cowed, and compliant people that believes the fallacy of an omnipotent State with the usurped supremacy to legislate in any manner it so pleases.

The Founders recognized a tool, and incorporated it in our Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clause’s 15 & 16. In order that no one could alter, diminish, or obfuscate that powerful authority they enshrined it as an unalienable right in the Second Amendment.

It is not a last resort when the chance of saving the Republic is dim, bur rather a first line of defense against bureaucrats, and black robbed administrators claiming undefined authority, and unlimited powers.

It is the body of the People with the authority to arrest “upon probable cause” any criminal on the streets, in the halls of the legislatures, or sitting on the bench. That body of the People is not restricted by some immunity by fiat, and decrees.

John Locke wrote, “…whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence.”

Are we there, but too complacent to see it, admit it, or fight it?

“I Want the Truth”

April 14, 2017 | 1st Amendment, General, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

Are Americans willing to see, or hear the truth? Can they handle it, or even comprehend the truth when it is spelled out for them?

“I want the truth.” The now famous line uttered by Tom Cruise in the movie “A Few Good Men” tells us much about our character today. We either can’t handle it, or have been blinded by so much propaganda that we’re incapable of recognizing the truth.

America is under attack “by enemies both foreign and domestic”. I have no qualms in stating that we have those in government who are feverishly working to put an end to this once great experiment. This last election exhibited the depths, to which the “elite” will go to destroy this country. They’ve worked for years to rape the common man. They can’t afford to allow you and I to have a true say in the running of this nation.

The saddest part of this is that we have those, with rather loud mouths, who profess to know the truth, but do not comprehend what they are to do with their platform. Unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally they’ve built themselves a following of misguided, and misinformed. There is plenty of backslapping, and celebrations for victories that are at best temporary, or fleeting, but as I’ve asked in the past, have we put one of the scoundrels behind bars?

When bombs drop, bullets fly, and truth becomes a casualty, lives are ruined or lost. Whatever the motives, the means, the directions, or underlying force, be it spiritual, alien, or human, there is no doubt that suffering is a mark of the latest tragedy. Something we see, and can lay hand upon is a task to comprehend and resolve. As Patrick Henry stated, “But different men often see the same subject in different lights”, and therein lies the path to our defeat. The vast majority seems incapable of recognizing what is right in front of them.

You cannot keep yelling, “the sky is falling” while telling your intended audience that they need to stand under the debris and take the brunt of the damage. No matter what side of the fence you stand, or what your beliefs are, this is a physical world. As Morpheus explained to Neo, “Your mind makes it feel real”. So it is in that condition that you currently live whether you like it or not. You cannot transcend the current state until you are willing to accept and overcome it on the terms and conditions that make it feel real.

In other words, there is no passage through a locked door, for which you have no key. Build the key with what you have, and you will gain further knowledge that helps you to rise above what makes it feel real.

For the conspiracy theorist, the fervent believers in a one true God, or however else you define your present state, may I point you to the King James bible, Luke 10:19; “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Whether you believe that those are the words of one Creator, or some alien race that planted us here, they translate to a simple instruction. You, in whatever reality you choose to place yourself, are responsible for the outcome.

It is up to you to resolve the issues you confront. There is no deity, superior being, or “one-eyed one horned flying purple people eater” that is going to come down and save you from you. What do I mean by this?

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to take the tools you have at hand and build the means, by which you will overcome whatever obstacle or threat is placed in your path. It should be obvious that you cannot fight with tools you neither have at hand, nor have the means of building at this particular time.

Take what you have, build on that in order to find what is beyond the veil that we see in front of our eyes. This of course leads me to what I see in front of me, and what it is that I will do with my meager skills and knowledge. For if there is one thing in this World, of which I am certain, it is the fact that my beliefs can be shattered in a heart beat. I make no pretense as to knowing what lies out there in what appears to be an ever-expanding Universe.

I could write about the things I’ve seen, the spiritual encounters, or experiences that I’ve had, but I choose not to. I do so because my reality doesn’t fit into what anyone else believes. If I’ve seen the unbelievable, someone else has seen more, and therefore I’m irrelevant. If I’ve had a spiritual encounter, I’ve witnessed the works of the devil because it falls on ears that can’t believe they are not superior in spirit to me. If I were to relate other aspects of my life, according to those who know more than me, someone, or some thing has duped me.

I can tell you that in my life I’ve been fed so much tripe that turns out to be wrong that it boggles the mind. Even with that, the same folks come back and keep telling me that I’m the one who doesn’t know. When I write here, it is about the state of affairs that I can combat.

So, until that day that I must face some horrible entity, Predators, creatures from the Black Lagoon, or the day comes that the good Lord calls me, and I can actually see what lies beyond this mortal plane, I will continue the battle with those tools that I have in front of me. I know that any entity that is an enemy of mankind will not give me access to whatever I might use to overcome evil, and until the day comes that I can design, acquire, or build the means of success I need to fight with what I have.

There is a simple logic in all of this that I subscribe to. I have been given limited gifts, from which I will build my life. I will lay the foundation for what I can define, and ascend my spirit to the next level. Without that belief, all I have is speculation, theory, and inferences from sources that may or may not be friendly to my health and welfare.

My reality is not your reality. That may be conceptual as I see it because my essence could be on a different level than others. My reality may conflict with yours because I believe I understand the nature of life. We are here to learn, and build upon those lessons based on our needs in what very well might be an evolution of spirit that takes us through a million life times.

If I’ve learned one thing in this life, it is that love is eternal. Beyond that, I know this. If there is one reality to be had in this World it is that in the great expanse of the Universe, there is more than I could absorb were I capable of using One Hundred percent of my brain. So it is not the destination that is the goal, but rather the journey.

If my journey was paved by those who toiled, strove, and overcame long before this day, it is my duty to take their knowledge to build upon. I say duty because a foundation was laid that was successful. I either can spend my time hoping for the best, or I can use the tools that have been past down. Sharpen the old sword, clean the old rifle, and keep them in shape for the day we finally understand that it is up to us “to execute” the rules to our favor. Hope is fine, but it is simply a mindset that only moves our emotions.

And thus ends my rant for today.

The Individual Rights Theory

February 28, 2017 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

In order to subscribe to the individual rights theory you must ignore the history of the nation and what the Founders specifically understood from personal experience. You must ignore the fact that the individual rights theory is a product of the later part of the Twentieth Century. You must also ignore the fact that the promoters of the theory are the same people who pushed through some of the most restrictive gun laws.

It’s simply a matter of bait and switch. If you convince the public that the Second amendment protects an individual right rather than the awesome power that the Constitution recognizes as the only authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” you’re one step closer to removing the sovereignty of the People.

The Second amendment reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. What does that mean in terms of those who wrote the Constitution, and for whom the document was written?

In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558 the court opined, “What did those who framed and adopted it understand the terms to designate and include? We must remember that the fifty-five members of the constitutional convention were men of great sagacity, fully conversant with governmental problems, deeply conscious of the nature of their task, and profoundly convinced that they were laying the foundations of a vast future empire. *** They had immediately before them the example of Great Britain, and they had a still better school of political wisdom in the republican constitutions of their several States, which many of them had assisted to frame.”

In Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332 the court noted “On this subject also, the Court has taken such frequent occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary, at least, to enter again into an elaborate discussion of it. To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary”.

Each of the Thirteen colonies had their own constitution that framed the workings of their respective republics. Each had its own militia that, for the most part, had existed for some 150 years prior to the revolution. Each understood militia to mean the body of the People with all able-bodied men, generally, from 17 – 45 required to keep and bear the prescribed firearm exactly as detailed in the statutes. Each understood the role played by militia when the first shots were fired on Lexington Green.

Tenche Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. –The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” I Annals of Congress (August 17, 1789)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)

Most important are the words of George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788. Clearly, the authors of the amendment understood that the word militia meant all of the People. It did not mean some body of the army, nor John Rambo out there pretending to be some super soldier.

So why is there this insistence that the second amendment is about an individual right and nothing else? Why is it that modern Americans can’t comprehend that militia is “the whole of the people” as stated by one of its authors?

In part, the idea of serving in some fashion is out of the question for most people. The Dick Act came into effect because the states allowed the militia to atrophied. Even the congress understood the need for “the whole of the people” to be armed and “well regulated”. The congress recognized the serious nature of this deficiency and invoked their power at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 to allow the states to have some force available for emergencies. “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, *** keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace.” It was a move prompted by the fact that Americans had become ambivalent, and could care less about the duties prescribed by law.

From the current New Jersey state Constitution:

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1

“Provision for organizing, inducting, training, arming, disciplining and regulating a militia shall be made by law, which shall conform to applicable standards established for the armed forces of the United States.”

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

“The Governor shall nominate and appoint all general and flag officers of the militia, with the advice and consent of the Senate. All other commissioned officers of the militia shall be appointed and commissioned by the Governor according to law.”

From the Virginia Constitution, upon which the Second was drawn:

“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

From the Virginia statutes:

  • [1775] “[I]n each county * * * all free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, above the age of sixteen, and under fifty years, except such as are * * * excepted [under the statute], shall be enlisted into the militia[.]”
  • [1777] “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty years [with various exceptions] * * * shall * * * be enrolled or formed into [Militia] companies[.]”

The statutes I quoted above were standard throughout the Thirteen colonies, and remained in force upon the formation of the Union. Across the states they explain Militia as “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty year”.

The Founders understood militia to be all the People “armed and disciplined”. So what has changed in law? The understanding of the awesome power of militia is the only change that can explain what has taken place. As Tenche Coxe noted “Congress have no power to disarm the militia”.

In the eyes of the Founders the “Militia of the several States” represented the ability of the People to enforce the law, and in all manner, maintain a “free State”. The Militia represented the full force of the sovereignty of the People acting as the basis for all law. An aspect of law that was made virtually impossible to change by the construction throughout the Constitution, and the existing state statutes.

In the early part of the Twentieth Century, those who sought to overthrow our “Republican Form of Government” corrupted the definition of militia as one means of dismantling the republic. Instead of the honorable position it held during the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, it was defamed. Militia became synonymous with the KKK, outlaws, and other nefarious institutions. The idea that the American people were stupid and incapable of independent thought became the doctrine, by which our most precious institutions would be ruined, and our sovereignty destroyed.

Throughout the Century we became cowed with fallacy after fallacy. The Sixteenth, and the Seventeenth amendments, neither one “ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States”. The Federal Reserve Bank, no more federal than FedEx. The gold confiscation, Pearl Harbor, the Lone gunman, WMD’s, and even when we’re told to our face that we were lied to as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we can’t muster the integrity to admit we’ve been duped.

From the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine of March 1968; “The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. *** NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.”

The article goes on, “The NRA supported the original ’Dodd Bill’ to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.”

I could go on, but to most who’ve been snatched out of reality and placed into some oblivion would not only deny the obvious, they’d rather “kill the messenger” than face the ugly truth.

This is a game that powerful people play. There is money from both sides of the battle, and it benefits the few at the top while the rest of us struggle to survive in an ever encroaching, and overbearing State. The Founders were astute, and far thinking. They did not leave to chance the power of the ‘Sword’. They placed it firmly in the hands of the good People, but today we spit on the legacy of the men who mustered on Lexington Green, those who harassed and battled the British Regulars all the way to Boston, and all those who fought for years to free this nation.

The roots, understanding, and need for “[T]he unlimited power of the sword *** where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” are there for everyone to read and follow. In modern America, even the so-called pro-2nd community fights tooth and nail against the proper application of the amendment that would revoke current gun control, and prevent any future attempts to disarm the populace.

Either the words and their definitions remain in tact today, or we face the dissolution of what was once a great republic. The Founders placed the ‘Sword of Sovereignty’ in the hands of the People. Americans reject their birthright, and instead we fight battles dictated by the enemies of freedom while they occasionally pat us on the head with what we perceive as a victory.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The Constitution recognizes the “Militia of the several States”, and the statutes detail what arms “to keep”, when, how and why to “bear” them. There are twenty-seven words in the amendment, and the so-called pro-2nd community appears to be incapable of understanding the dynamic of the law of the land surrounding this crucial link to liberty.

I’m being generous when I say incapable because there is a darker side to this denial. It is a slap in the face of those who sacrificed in order that this nation could be born. Militia is a requirement of law. It imposes a duty on all members of society. It is not voluntary. It demands that we train, and become proficient in whatever is necessary for “A well regulated militia”. It is the essence of controlling crime on the streets, the halls of the legislatures, and corruption in the judiciary.

On the other hand the individual right requires nothing of anyone. It imposes no duty, creates no office, and in practice is nothing more than talk. It does not demand that we sacrifice a few weekends a year, or muster when an emergency strikes the community. All that is needed of the individual right is for the populace to complain when emergency services are overwhelmed, and have not saved us from whatever disaster we might face. It is a tool for what America has become; a nation of ignorant whiners who know nothing of the Founders and the tools they past to us so that we might, just might keep ourselves and our progeny free and prosperous.

Murder For Hire

July 22, 2016 | General, History, Republic, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

We have had an horrific shooting, in which 49 people were killed and over 50 wounded. A man who was born here, of Afghani descent, carried out this act of terrorism. To add to that, Mateen had been interrogated by the FBI and was an employee of G4S Security (a DHS contractor).

Judge Andrew Napolitano recently read from an FBI report wherein they stated that no one died in the Pulse nightclub until 5:13 AM.

We have had an attack on police, resulting in five dead and six wounded by possibly two shooters, or as it goes the lone gunman, using military style tactics (according to reports). Six more shot in Baton Rouge, and every time I look there has been another incident.

Half of what we know cannot be properly verified, nor do I expect it to be as-is the case of Sandy Hook (now classified under National Security with FOIA request routinely denied). On a more global scale we are denied the full story of what happened in Benghazi. The depths of misinformation seem to be bottomless.

My journey into this starts many years ago as a young child listening to the family talking politics and life in general. Back then it seemed that no one trusted government and behind most events you could uncover a conspiracy. Certainly the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, and WMD’s in Iraq are three of the most obvious.

I’ve heard men, such as Dr. Steve Pieczenik, state that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy involving many, many participants.

For shootings such as the Aurora Theater and now Pulse nightclub, we know that witnesses claimed multiple shooters were involved. Perhaps in Orlando, with a bit of help from the FBI, we can conclude that those other shooters were all police.

Would the government cover up the facts and would the media participate in the cover up? Without a doubt. For what purpose? One could certainly be that the administration is intent on disarming the populace. Another could be that one or more of these attacks were bona fide terrorist attacks perpetrated by someone, who the FBI was well aware of, had plans. Another still, goes back to the employer of Omar Mateen, G4S – a government contractor performing the same type of work as Blackwater.

However, what prompted me to write this particular article was the fact that I was approached by a co-worker who asked for my take on what had happened in Orlando. In short, he could not reconcile the story being promoted by the media. It simply did not make sense to him and certainly we can agree that a lot of what we are told makes little to no sense.

I mention that because in studying history back in school we engaged the topics of the day as current events and legislative action of the congress. As a young teenager I had no idea that we would be living out what was opined in those discussions. The legislation then was not for the benefit of the people, but rather the slow and inevitable destruction of all rights by a small group of men and women who have no regard for their fellow man. Their primary concern is the ill-gotten gains they can obtain for selling out the populace. Those of us they consider useless-feeders.

This is no longer a republic. We have not operated in a capitalist environment for decades. Our existence is based in conspiracy, lies, and ignorance. Most Americans would much rather not be involved in the truth. Lies are much easier to absorb for the masses. Hitler is quoted as saying, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” Every day is given to those words as I watch this nation fall for every charlatan, politician, or media personality who is incapable of telling the truth.

Certainly, most American’s wouldn’t recognize a conspiracy if you placed every piece of evidence in their laps. The only thing that would matter is what the corporate media portrayed, and the fact that in this modern day and age with communication as it is it would be impossible to pull something off as large as Newtown.

News Flash folks! It’s easier today than it has ever been. The narrative starts before the event is understood.

Ridiculous you say? The Internet provides the means for both sides of the story to come to pass quickly, and in most cases without all the facts in place. The question is, who controls the narrative? In years past you had investigative journalists who were not limited by a corporate media (that took its marching orders from DC), but rather were interested in learning the truth.

The facts were not readily available, so someone would have to go out and vet the information. It wasn’t ‘here it is’, ‘don’t believe anything else after this’ even when you see inconsistencies in the story. The vast majority will confine themselves to the boob tube and not look any further than their noses. Certainly I’m not off the mark when I say that government fabricates situations such as Private Lynch’s story and Pat Tillman’s murder, Nayirah testimony, Saddam’s WMD’s, and then there is Western created ISIS.

There is also the fact that FBI organizes almost all terror plots in the US. I don’t expect the intended audience to read any of the links that I’ve posted here because that might actually disturb their understanding of what is taking place in this country, so I’ll just go to the point of this article:


Corporations from the so-called mainstream media, to the military industrial complex, to the pharmaceutical giants control the agenda. Municipal water resources are sold to private companies. Land is stolen by the BLM in order that foreign nations or corporations can take it over. The list of fascist enterprise is staggering.

Our elected representatives and bureaucrats have no problem selling us out to line their pockets, and it is the corporate media that fools the people into believing the very notions we should abhor.

What has any of this done for the American people? The Flint, Michigan water crisis goes well beyond what we initially thought. Can someone justify to me why the federal and state EPA’s were not on top of this a long time ago? It just didn’t creep up on us unexpectedly.

Now to the point that really hits home and displays, not only the ignorance of the American public, but also the callus attitude for which the elite display by ignoring and disparaging the truth; a barrage of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.

Let’s first recognize the fact that the eradication of disease in this country is due, in large part, to our change in primary health functions such as bathing and clean water. Diseases such as polio were already on the decline when the vaccine became available. “In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961.”

Jenny McCarthy, an activist in the autism spectrum field made vaccines and the effects they have on children a news topic. Since then there have been court cases proving the detrimental effect of the vaccine schedule on children that has prompted some doctors to come out and give us some insight of the vaccine to autism issue.

Obesity, autism, polio, tuberculosis, and even small pox are on the rise. Part of it has to do with Top 9 vaccines you never need…” Some of it has to do with this government allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter who are carrying infectious diseases. Certainly, water pollution plays a big part. Then there is the food chain.

It should be noted that Vladimir Putin is making Russia a GMO free country, and that Russia will be the #1 exporter of non-gmo foods. Why? Because despite the corporate media promotion of, if not outright lies, certainly questionable scientific studies have fooled the majority. Some scientists are starting to speak out on the real dangers of genetically engineered food.

We are under attack. Genocide is taking place in this country and it is being covered up not only by legislators, bureaucrats and corporate entities, but also a public that consistently refuses to investigate the facts and admit they’ve been deceived.

The people who are supposed to represent you do not. They represent themselves, the power and the lust for money. Their concern is the expansion of government and the eradication of resistance. Their actions are no different than Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, or Idi Amin.

We are looking at so many attacks on the good people of this nation, that I’m absolutely amazed at how complacent the majority appears to be. In the face of these attacks what does government do? If you need to understand the dynamic of what is taking place and why we are in the midst of genocide and political cleansing, just look to the states of California, and Massachusetts where the disarming of the people is in full force.