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

Restore the Republic

The Intent of the Second Amendment

April 8, 2016 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

                                                                 A Correspondence

This is a small part of a correspondence that I’ve had with someone who is an individual rights proponent. Not all the same old arguments, but I’ve decided to post my last word on the matter. I might note here that because of the lack of study, and decades of propaganda in the area of Militia, it has become difficult, at best, to enlighten someone on the inextricable link between the individual who is bound by law to participate in Militia, train and be armed as a soldier as opposed to the individual who has no obligation to “bear” all the implements required to keep this nation free and safe from “Invasions” by hordes of illegal migrants, foreign entities at our borders and ports, or cartels looting our coffers. 

I should also note that even those who claim to be strict constitutionalists fail to read the Second Amendment in the same light as applied to every other word in the Constitution. It’s as if a spell has been cast that was designed to prevent the People from revitalizing the Militia that is responsible to maintain “a free state”.

By its implication and the fascinating, and “necessary” part Militia played in the “Revolution”, it should be understood that every able-bodied man who was not exempt by statute, or incapable of bearing arms was required to do so. You carried your weapon to church, in to town, and across the landscape. You not only had the right, but the duty to be prepared. These two components alone should be more than enticing to the so-called pro-gun community.

It was Virginia that was most insistent on a Bill of Rights, and as history has proven, most prophetic. Virginia, as did most colonies, recognized the need for an armed populace. “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; 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.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

I can’t be any clearer than the statement “composed of the body of the people” is all of us, contributing in some manner to the Militia. The Second Amendment was not incorporated into the Bill of Rights in order to protect a right that “We hold *** to be self-evident”. The right was there from the outset, and if it can’t be understood in that fashion, then the entire context of this nation of Sovereigns has lost all meaning.

Dear Sir,

I’m going in a different direction since I’m certain that you’ve not read any Militia laws, nor will it be admitted that other than a few of us who are actually pro-2nd, that the vast majority do not know and understand how the Founders relied upon those existing statutes to incorporate the intended awesome power of Militia.

I’m a former commodity broker so when you tell me I’m wrong, it has some significance in how things play out. I recall a time many years ago when I started buying sugar around 7¢. My plan was to buy a couple of contracts each day because my goal was 15¢. I continued with the plan as the market broke above 9¢. A friend came along and told me that the industry was selling, and that I needed to liquidate. He kept at it for days until I became concerned, as the market stalled. I liquidated my position, and then watched as sugar broke above 15¢. Almost all believed I was wrong in my analysis, as does the vast majority of the patriot community when it comes to the Militia of the Several States.

We know that the pretend pro-2nd community avoids the first 13 words of the amendment as if they are a plague. They have little to no knowledge of how Militia were drawn up some 150 years before the revolution, and how they evolved, during the revolution, in accordance with the reasons, and intent laid out in the Magna Carta. The nature and authority of Militia has not changed, nor can it be changed in the rubric that the Founders created from Article 1, to the 2nd.

While it was only money that I left on the table those years ago, it is nothing compared to the stakes we are gambling today, which are frighteningly high. So perhaps you can answer a few questions, since you claim that the Constitution depends solely on words that present day Americans neither understand, but to their own demise are unwilling to accept.

  1. What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” mean?
  2. What else did the Founders deem as “necessary” for the freedom and liberty they’d won?
  3. Why does the Constitution note Militia authority and duty 6 times?
  4. What does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 mean; “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion”?
  5. Does Section 8, Clause 16 “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” enumerate a delegated authority that prevents the congress from [un] organizing, disarming, and leaving Militia undisciplined?
  6. What does the statement in Clause 16 mean as the Founders intended “for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”?
  7. What does the statement in Clause 16 mean as the Founders intended “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”?
  8. Are the states allowed the authority to appoint officers to the National Guard?
  9. Do the states train the National Guard or does the army?
  10. Can the states refuse to allow National Guard into the service of the federal government?
  11. Can the states refuse to allow Militia into the service of the federal government?
  12. Can the congress take the clearly defined power of Militia from the hands of the People, and hand it over to “the military [that] should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power”?

I could ask more, but it would be a pointless exercise, and you need not answer any of the questions. The one truly perplexing question for which I can draw no logical explanation, is why you would subscribe to the individual rights theory when it is the authority and power of Militia that would ultimately guarantee the individual right without any further interference from government, be it local, state, or federal?

However, let me tell you the reasons why the individual rights theory exists, and why the people would not only abdicate their power, but also disparage it.

This nation has been a burr in the side of the bankers, and oligarchs of the world since its inception. If Andrew Jackson is to be believed, he said that the European bankers made some Eight attempts on his life, the last failed assassin confessing to the fact that he was indeed in the employ of those bankers. Of course we know that Jackson was responsible for the elimination of the national bank, and thereby a target of the oligarchy.

Every war we’ve fought has been about money and the control of nation states by a few individuals who lend money and then demand payment at the cost of brave men who go off to fight in order to feed the greedy coffers of some corporation or bank. As General Smedley Butler stated, “War is a racket”. War is indeed a racket and the primer is “Money as a Tool to Control”.

Patrick Henry understood the nature of man, and knew men such as John Jay to be untrustworthy. He also understood that the character of men would not be ever vigilant, but more likely would become ambivalent, and certainly weary of the exercise of sovereignty. This is why he was such a strong advocate for a Bill of Rights, and why Virginia refused to sign the Constitution as it was written. It is certainly why Thomas Jefferson wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots”. Militia is unarguably a major dynamic of the Constitution in addition to its high place as an unalienable right, and what the Founders intended as the first, and last component of a “free state”.

How do you bring the People completely under your control when the law of the land places its full force in the hands of an organized, armed, and disciplined populace? Lies, deceit, manipulation, a long-term program of turmoil, and re-education would certainly be a course.

We have the 16th and the 17th amendments, both shown to be invalid with the presentation of over 17,000 certified documents handed to the congress and to the courts. Both bodies refusing to act on the fraud.

We’ve had in our midst, as Jackson described them to be “a den of vipers and thieves”, a Federal Reserve that is no more federal than every other lie that this government spews forth. It exists for the benefit of the moneylenders, “Dollars and Sense”.

We’ve had false flag after false flag, but agents of government have convinced the people that conspiracies don’t exist. In my mind, the biggest conspiracy of all has been the removal of the power of the “Sword” from the hands of the people.

Fighting for a right using the wrong application of law comes to a root that exposes the nature of man, as Patrick Henry feared. We are corruptible, easily misled, prideful and egotistical, and by these sinful traits, we are bound to abandon not only what our Founders provided, but easily persuaded to forsake our progeny.

As previously noted, all wars are fought over money, and certainly the money flows for and against the 2nd. Pro-2nd groups take the money to fight a battle that cannot come to a lawful conclusion so the contributions are endless. Those who rape our treasury fund anti-2nd groups so that when we finally wake up there will be little chance of victory.

There is no convincing the majority that the “Sword” was clearly placed in our hands, and it needed to be maintained as it was originally designed. If we were to take up this mantle we would first have to admit to ourselves that we’ve been duped into a position, for which there is no proper solution. The individual is incapable of standing up to the state in a martial confrontation, and even in a court the game is rigged against the individual. He/she needs the support and lawful integrity of “A well-regulated” body of his fellow citizens who have the defined duty to bring the state back to compliance with our will.

These so-called patriots and pro-2nd people have no explanation as to how to “redress [a] grievance” when the court tells us that the government has no obligation to respond to our complaints no matter what the facts; Magna Carta told us otherwise.

This group of patriots can’t explain to me where they go, or to whom they report if they are part of this constitutionally impossible “unorganized militia”.

What is most distressing is that the “unorganized militia” is perfectly content never mustering, training, or learning the skills of a qualified soldier. They would much rather leave that to the few who volunteer a portion of their lives, and all too often their limbs.

Surely there must be some who are of the same opinion as myself. As I’ve mentioned here before, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. has written extensively on Militia, including “The Sword and Sovereignty”. While 2nd amendment groups speak gibberish of the right, and the court opines nothing but mumbo-jumbo, Dr. Vieira has written a tome that not only eclipses the information from Selective Service, but it also does so in dramatic fashion. “The Sword and Sovereignty” is over 2300 pages, with more than 4,000 footnotes on law and history.

Dr. Vieira has also written “Thirteen Words”, “Three Rights”, and “Constitutional Homeland Security”, all of which would be a good starting point for anyone wishing to honestly explore what the 2nd is truly about. However, none of these books are at the top of the reading lists of any 2nd group. None of Dr. Vieira’s books will be promoted by the likes of LaPierre, or any of this disdainful mob that misleads, and attorneys that misrepresent.

I grow tired of a debate with those who would much rather argue a misapplication of law than to muster a few times a year in order to gain the skills “necessary to the security of a free state”. It is exhausting to watch as the wool is pulled over the eyes of millions of Americans who would become nothing more than fodder, should God forbid our worst fears are brought to these shores. That is to say if it is not already taking place.

“I have but one lamp”

September 2, 2015 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Militia

Albert Einstein noted that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Gun owners around the country struggle with failed policies and strategies. They cling to ideas that can’t be reconciled with the end result. Obviously, if we’ve not placed one bureaucrat, or elected representative behind bars for violating the oath of office, all we’ve done is delay the inevitable. Without the force of law, there is no remedy or relief for us when it is clear that incumbents are re-elected at a percentage greater than 80%.

We continue on this path not because of patriotism, but because doing our duty would interfere with the ignorance, greed, corruption, ambivalence, and false pride that has been ingrained and adopted over the years.

The Second Amendment was not placed in the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee an individual right, but rather to make it almost impossible for the government to take away the ‘Sword’ from the good People of this nation. More importantly, to emphasize the fact that it is only the Militia that has certain clearly defined duties, and by doing so fulfill that, which is “necessary to the security of a free state”.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15&16 are enumerated as clear as can be, but the so-called patriot community wants nothing to do with the expressed duty “To execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. In order to do this, every able-bodied man would have to give up a few weekends a year to gain, and maintain the proficiency to act in an emergency.

Why would summer soldiers want to do this when they can live with the illusion that, pleading, protesting, and screaming at those who are supposed to represent us as guardians of our rights do anything but abide their oath of office.

Patrick Henry stated, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I have no way of judging of the future but by the past”. There is nothing in the past of protesting that has changed things before tens-of-thousands of soldiers died, or hundreds had their lives ruined and not made whole.

What is it that tells you that removing one selected candidate of a party with another will change things? Colorado recalls did nothing.

What is it that tells you that expecting corrupt politicians and judges to abide the law when you yourself will deny it is a viable strategy? Either you understand the concept of our law, or you’re doomed to fail.

No matter what you believe, or strive for, the truth be told by one of the worlds most abominable tyrants, Mao Zedong. Mao stated, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. So when you say that we must engage the power monopoly on their ground, in their courts, using their procedures and rules, I must ask if you are truly insane? You’ve abdicated the power of the ‘Sword’ to your enemies, and you expect them to adhere to what?

The Founders of this nation were forward thinking enough to provide the methods and the tools for the good People to fight off tyranny. It is as the expression goes “As plain as the nose on your face”.

While the ability to thwart the institution of tyrannical government, for which the Founders had on the ground experience, they understood the need and importance of Militia. It was, after all, those hardy and trained men who kept the British from defeating the Colonists, and it is of course the ultimate force of law.

“Who are the militia? are they not ourselves.” The question posed and answered by Tenche Cox was inherent at the founding of this nation. The whole of the People “entitled and accustomed to their arms” would be a bulwark against any force bent on the destruction of liberty, but in component application of citizens united, also represents a community bound in friendship, understanding, recognition, and most importantly “security”.

But the questions seem to come up as to whether we need Militia today? Whether it even exists under the current unconstitutional statutes? As Dr. Edwin Vieira explains, the congress has corrupted the wording to mislead the public as to what they are lawfully allowed to enact. The deceit perpetrated by the state should be reason enough to realize that Militia is most important, especially today, in order to regain our freedom.

We live in dangerous times. The U.S. has troops all over the world, in some 150 countries as a matter of fact. This represents at least two dramatic issues. One being that the military could not possibly repel an invasion of this nation.

A nation of just over Three-Hundred-Million that imposes its will on the world is bound to make enemies in at least a small percentage of those countries now occupied. It is estimated that we’ve killed Millions overtly, and covertly in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria in this apparently never ending war on terror. If that hasn’t produced some who seek revenge I’d be greatly shocked.

I see in the atmosphere of America that retribution against our nation does not seem to enter into awareness. While it is a very likely possibility that we would be subject to “blow-back” the public stands quiet on the need for emergency preparations, and the outrageous immigration policies that are allowing at least known criminals, if not terrorists, into the country.

We are a nation ill prepared for a catastrophe. While there is ample contingency provided by statute for those who represent us, the statutes are silent on what we the People should do if an emergency arises. What we do know is that there is plenty of crying, and demand for restitution by the public in cases such as Hurricane Katrina, and Sandy. Who, but for a few of us, are talking about the need to have the entire populace prepared for disasters?

The typical state Emergency Preparedness statutes, modeled from the federal statutes, read like any other aspects of code. They are filled with definitions, authorities, points, aspects, but most importantly nothing that goes to the heart of where you and I go, what we do, or who we look to while the disaster is underway.

Is there an Emergency Preparedness coordinator on your block, or in your town? Someone with whom you’ve discussed your preparations, and your role should an emergency take place. Someone who has come to your home and outlined what would be important in various emergencies.

What of a chemical, or biological disaster out of control? What do you do if a nuclear power plant goes critical? What of a tsunami, major fire, or any other catastrophic destructive force?

If MS 13, or one of the other growing gangs in this nation decides to single out your home, to whom do you turn? Do you call 911 and hope that the police aren’t busy with some other crime, or whether they’ll take their time in responding? Do you take on the thugs on your own? Do you even understand what they are capable of?

What do we do in the case of a terrorist attack, or an invasion? What if it’s the worst-case scenario? Do you muster somewhere? Do you have “all the terrible instruments of the soldier” to defend the homeland? Are you familiar with the proper use of those tools?

We’ve been lucky over the last century in that we’ve not experienced the kind of catastrophe that struck Fukushima. The frequency that Earthquakes are occurring has been increasing, and the fact that our nuclear plants are on or close to fault lines seem to be a recipe for a coming catastrophe, for which we are ill prepared.

More importantly, we’ve not seen battle on our land since the Civil War. Would we know how to respond if the lives of our children became targets of terrorist attacks as this government keeps warning? The answer is an unequivocal NO! Instead we will have more calls for disarming the very body that is, by law, the only authority to “repel Invasions”.

Considering our open border policies, and the warnings from our Border Patrol of known or suspected enemies crossing into these United States the possibility of a Fifth Column leading the way to an invasion is a very real risk. Look at your children, and take a moment to consider what I’m saying here.

Where’s the army to take on the invaders? Even if it is just an increase in the influx of well-armed vicious gangs, can the law enforcement community handle the strain? There are reductions in the military, which itself is burdened with systems that are faulty, and as we’ve recently seen, the military is not even authorized to defend itself from the type of attacks that have led to the deaths of a number of our servicemen right here in hometown USA.

With the army being posted all over the globe it is unlikely they could respond in a timely fashion to more than one incident, nor are they authorized by law to do so. It is “We the People” who are responsible for our defense. It is there in plain sight. It has been made irrelevant by not only the lies from the halls of the legislatures, but by our own failure to recognize what is right in front of our face.

Ask yourself, when an emergency arises, what will you do? Look to your Militia unit? NO! You’ve let it die along with so many other aspects of that, which made this country.

Nicholas Testaccio

This Fourth of July 2015

July 4, 2015 | Founders, History, Militia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Militiamen, who knew the way of the woods, appeared here and there to harass the Red Coats. Men as old as Hezekiah Wyman who was Fifty-five years of age. The British titled Hezekiah “Death on a Pale Horse”  because his accuracy and barrage of fire led the British to believe that he was an entire rifle squad. Older still was Samuel Whittmore who at age 78 stood at point bland range to engage the regulars with his rifle, pistols, and then in hand to hand combat.

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas Testaccio

 

 

 

“Fire – Fire”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The congress does of course have the delegated power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” in order that the Militia may carry out its duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” ***“suppress Insurrections”. By exercising this delegated power the Congress removes the chance of impropriety as the ‘Sword’ remains firmly in the hands of the good People of this nation who are the ultimate arbiters of the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas Testaccio