Who Is To Blame?

May 19, 2021 | General

by Nicholas Testaccio

If you were to look at the figures compiled on homicides in America you might become anxious or perhaps frightened. What you should not become is stupid.

There are numerous factors surrounding violence in America. Location, immigration, politics, an abysmal failing to uphold the Constitution, and propaganda, just to name a few.

Eliminate cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and St. Louis, and the murder rate in America goes from one of the highest in the world, to one of the lowest. It is incredibly sad, but not surprising, to say that the cities with the largest bureaucracies, being run by democratic socialists are the places that position America at the highest levels of mayhem. Taking away the inexplicable madness of the people who continually vote for their own demise, the abusive forms to which they subscribe, and that would place America as one of the most peaceful countries in the World.

Peace and stability are not the goal of the politician as they cannot flourish in an environment wherein the people are content with their prosperity. They must be brought to heel so that the politician is perceived as being a necessary component to safety. Within the large cities the population comes to believe that they are the sophisticates by way of educational programs, cultural sites, a programmed media touting the accolades of subjugation to “public officials” and the false narrative of the benefits of democracy. Almost every aspect of the large city is designed to diminish the natural proclivity toward freedom.

Regardless of your political bent on immigration, the issue has become a means to sow strife throughout the nation. There are those who like to say that this is a nation of immigrants. A nation of immigrants will tear itself apart as different groups cling to the ways of the old country and destroy the fabric of the Republic. A country that allows migration for the purpose of enhancing its structure is also a nation where the migrant becomes part of the culture. They may or may not maintain their traditions, but they must assimilate the laws and customs of their new home. They can trace and recall their ancestry, but in the long run, they must be an American. Plain and simple.

Most people come to America to better themselves. That, of course, was a legitimate sentiment One Hundred years ago. They were allowed to come here for one reason or another. We might have needed tailors, watchmakers, carpenters, machinists, or artisans of some skill. They came in droves and they enhanced the nation while assimilating to its unique form of liberty.

During WWII, everyone was involved in the war effort. Those craftsmen who had previously migrated became an integral part of the manufacturing base. Singer Sewing Machine company, located in Elizabeth, NJ, was the beneficiary of German machinists who had migrated years before. Singer was given a contract to manufacture the 1911 pistol. When Singer delivered its first run of 1911’s, the U.S. government told them to stop building the pistol. The quality of the firearm was so high that the government then gave them a contract to build the Norden Bombsight. Those German migrants made a huge contribution to the country, from which they sought a new life.

People migrated from different countries at different times because there were opportunities to perform their unique talents unencumbered by rules and regulations set down by public officials who believed they were the ultimate authority. Governments around the world controlled your way of life in a manner that trespassed on personal freedom. Not so in the U.S. where liberty, property rights, and popular sovereignty were the way of life. Ellis Island was the gateway for a new life that is still unique to this day.

For years now, our welcoming of immigrants has been used to form a method of division. Did you, your parents, or grandparents come here to be an immigrant? Perhaps you came here because the country in which you had lived prevented you from some of those things that were most natural to the human spirit. In that light, I would hope that you came here to become a citizen. Maybe it was your intent to take whatever wealth could be had in a nation where productivity was greatly rewarded as many who currently invade the country have planned.

Did you come here to experience and promote the American character of individual liberty? If that be the case, then why bring the mindset of a serf who is subject to a master who has no right to be your better? Is the idea of liberty so abhorrent to you that you would look to saddle the existing population with your illogical clamor for an overseer? Perhaps it is your intent to sap the wealth of the existing population and then saddle them with oppression. Be mindful of your actions today, for they are the seeds of tomorrow.

The legal system, and I say legal because it is no longer a system of law, but rather a means by which the elite subjugate the lower classes. It is everything for which the Founders warned, and the Framers of the Constitution made preparation. Under the guise of what some perceive as good social order, the courts have subscribed to the false narrative that they have some imaginary power to interpret and bend the Constitution to their way of thinking. Given any more latitude, the courts will put the final nail in the  coffin.

In addition to the disgraceful conduct regarding the 2020 election, the supreme court has given a pass to such despicable people as  Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, Maxine Waters, as the list of law breakers goes on. If we are going to be honest, our system of law is in decay. It is systemically bad, a term for which the left should be familiar. What we call law and order has become an agenda driven tool of propaganda. A certain group, those who I believe are tied to China, are given a pass as they commit heinous acts against the Republic.

We seem to forget that justice in this nation was based on a harm perpetrated by one against a victim who could bring his case forward to a Grand Jury to seek remedy. It was not categorized, codified to different degrees, and then made subject to the definitions created by those who were not involved. It was the subject of investigation by “We the People” who would necessarily indict, and subsequently cast a verdict and define remedy. In today’s system, the victim does not receive relief, and in some cases that victim may be the subject of prosecution by a zealous prosecutor who does not believe that you and I have a right to defend our family, lives, or property.

And what of this obvious bias coming out of agencies with supposed constitutional power to enforce the law? It exists for an amazingly simple reason, ignorance of the law. That ignorance is in part created by an abysmal failing to uphold the Constitution. While those at the top take advantage by reshaping the Law into a propaganda tool, “We the People”, who are the author and source of the Law have abdicated our responsibility to enforce it, or sadly enough, make any attempt to comprehend the rule.

An intensely disturbing aspect of the failure to comprehend comes from the community of those who claim to be patriots and supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. I recently posted an article by Dr. Edwin Vieira, and a couple of my own to a “gun” forum. While I have suspected that the topic has been distorted to a point of no return, I had a moment of enlightenment. An awakening so to speak.

Before going further, I am going to make a comparison that all so-called pro-second people should understand. In the United States of America, Militia has a lawful definition in history, statute, and ultimately the Constitution. “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” This comes directly from United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

If one were to read the debates, and “the history and legislation of Colonies and States” one would find that Militia was not defined as a group of men who just happened to come together, but rather an organized, armed, and disciplined assemblage of “able-bodied men” bearing arms they themselves supplied. They operated by statute and were recognized as an authority, a power that the Framers carried into the new Republic operating under the Constitution.

The term Militia appears four times in the original Constitution, and twice in the Bill of Rights. In 1792, the U.S. Congress passed the first Militia Act, and revised it in February of 1795 to read as follows: “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.” I will note that in 1861 the act was revised so that “white male” was struck from the record.

Between 1939, and what the so-called pro-second community now insists on ignoring, something tragic happened. JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated, and the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed. Having no apparent education, or for that matter any desire to protect the duty to keep and bear arms as the Constitution commands, the NRA came up with the inept, at best, “individual right theory”. The theory exbibits monumental cowardice and corruption, not to mention the fact that it gives all those who would never come to the defense of the nation an out. Indeed, it promotes a myriad of excuses to lose the right, all our rights by putting the blame on someone or something else.

In his Miller decision, Justice McReynolds wrote “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [Militia], the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”. Long before the “individual right theory” was created, the supreme court had already clearly stated that the objective of those who ratified the Constitution was to “continu[e] and render possible the effectiveness” of the militia recognized as a force of law.

Along with the evident need to fulfill the duty commanded in the original Constitution came the requirement “to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”. Here is where the need to understand that the opinion must be read in its entirety. Justice McReynolds notes, by reading the words of Founders, that all able-bodied men are required to purchase, and maintain whatever weapon is in common use. In 1795 it would have been a flintlock. In 1861 a musket, revolver, or if you were fortunate enough one of those Henry rifles. In 1903 a Springfield Model, an M1 Garand around the time of WWII, and today, an M4 or M16.

At issue before the court in 1939 was whether a sawed-off shotgun was in common use for the efficiency of “the Militia of the several States”. The justice wrote “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

In 1939, there was no use of a sawed off shotgun in the military. That came some years later, but you must note that the justice said, “at this time”. He did not say now and forever, nor did he claim that a regulation could be imposed on weapons “in common use at the time.”  Had he done so, he would not only have contradicted himself but “the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators”, upon which he relied to draw his conclusion.

Unfortunately, as with so many cases, the public fails to read and understand the decision in its complete context. To complicate matters, most of the legal profession does not seem capable of comprehending the dynamic of the Constitution and the ability to grasp the rules of reading. Every word is to be considered in the context of the complete sentence, and every sentence in the context of the paragraph formed. This is clearly the case regarding the second,  and the refusal to realize that the first Thirteen words give us the purpose of the amendment. And that is precisely what Justice McReynolds opined.

There is a much darker side to the right to keep and bear arms. First, the subject matter has been corrupted by both sides of the argument. Those who are opposed to an armed citizenry ignore the fact that the original Constitution commands that there be a mandatory Militia, as defined in the statutes, and that there must be a free, unencumbered, and unregulated market for the purchase and upkeep of weapons “in common use at th[is] time.” Those who claim to be patriots will use any term, any misguided statement, any distortion of law, and a complete disdain for all the words in the Constitution to attain some mysterious goal. Like those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms, those who claim to embrace it share the mindset that someone else should bear the burden of protecting liberty. For those who oppose the right, they want some government official to take the responsibility. For those who claim to be for the right, I can honestly say that I do not know what they believe. For that matter, I am not sure that they themselves have an inkling of the construction of the second amendment and the duty commanded by the Constitution.

Amid all the turmoil chaos and ignorance reigns. There is confusion that has been promoted by fear and propaganda. In what appears to be a futile attempt to educate, I have come to an awakening. I have questioned throughout the process as to what it is that I have left out of the narrative? Surely, quoting those who wrote the law, the law itself, and the many court decisions should strike a chord? The words, thoughts, and logic employed by our Founders who called on the light of history to guide them appear as nothing more than dark shadows instead of pearls of wisdom and warning.

The law, as it was intended, has been turned around in a whirlwind of deceit. Those who hold on to the foolish notion that they are supporters of the second amendment, they completely ignore the first Thirteen words of the amendment that detail its purpose and objective: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Through all the words on this page, there are none more poignant than the first Thirteen words of the second amendment because they define what we seek to protect, and they tell us the lawful means by which we are to defend.

However, I have come to realize that the propaganda surrounding the term Militia has been so demonized by dark forces imbued in our system that the lawful body of the people as the Founders knew and understood has become another vassal for the destruction of America.

Recently, I was admonished by a commenter of a “gun forum” for trying to raise a militia on a public forum. I was rebuked behind an article I posted by Dr. Edwin Vieira, jr., a man I consider to be the foremost authority on the duty and the right to keep and bear arms. In the article, Dr. Vieira wrote, “Finally, “the individual right” is a right of an ordinary private citizen, asserting personal interests, not a right of a member of a governmental establishment, exercising governmental authority. This enables “gun controllers” to portray “gun control” as a policy proposed in the public interest, and to berate those Americans who oppose “gun control” as “anti-government extremists” acting against the general welfare.”.

Long before I was born into this world Justice Matthews, writing for the court, penned the words, “in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom government exists and acts.”. We act today as if those words are incomprehensible, and that the means of enforcing our sovereignty were never considered by those who debated and ratified the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, and that of the several states, recognized a lawful Militia that is defined in the historical and legislative record. That Militia is a lawful body with authority and power recognized in law. It is not the Michigan militia, nor any of the other groups that claim such status. Those groups have no lawful authority. They are pretenders, perverting the rule of law, and lending confusion to the debate for the right to keep and bear arms. They are not recognized through any legal process and lack any of the established power that is an accepted part of our law. This is not Somalia, nor Afghanistan where groups of men take up arms and they are labeled as militia. In this nation, the term Militia references a lawful authority that operates according to statute and was made a permanent fixture in the rule of law so that “We the People” had the ultimate power to control rogue “public officials”.

It is beyond my comprehension as to what is allowed in our schools. Reason and logic have been abandoned for some mindset that disregards what is clearly written and backed by the words of those who wrote the Constitution. In today’s world, those who claim to be patriots simply add acrimony to a debate lacking substance. There is no right, there are no rights without the venue and force “necessary to the security of a free State”.

It is delusion and ignorance that fuels an argument that should  have been settled long ago and done so within the proper powers cited in our rule of law.

No Comments »

A Case Of Treason

March 25, 2021 | Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founding Documents, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

The charge of Treason has been bandied about for some time now in light of government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. After years of listening to the charge cast, I have decided to examine the issue in order to ascertain whether I could make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Article III, § 3, Cl. 1 – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The Constitution is clear as to how such an indictment might come about. To start I must ask the following questions:

1. Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization engaged in “levying War” against the United States?
2. Does war include covert acts, propaganda, sabotage, and acts subverting our ability to wage a war and defense of the nation?
3. Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization who “in adhering to their Enemies, [is] giving them Aid and Comfort”?
4. Considering the unique form of government in the United States, do the definitions of “levying War”, “Aid and Comfort” expand the criteria by function and implication of our law?
5. Does disarming “the body of the people” rise to the level of treason?

In his commentaries, William Blackstone wrote, “Treason, proditio, in it’s very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, *** This is looked upon as proceeding from the same principle of treachery in private life, as would have urged him who harbours it to have conspired in public against his liege lord and sovereign: *** [W]hen disloyalty so rears it’s crest, as to attack even majesty itself, it is called by way of eminent distinction high treason, alta proditio”.

Sir Michael Foster, Discourse on High Treason. “High Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance, it may be proper before I proceed to the several Species of that Offence which will be the Subject of this Discourse, to consider From whom, and To whom Allegiance is due.” Foster goes on to explain that “Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member”.

Foster wrote his Discourse in 1762, a time when monarchs ruled, and the not yet formed United States was nothing more than a hope and dream of a few who wished to throw off the bonds of  allegiance to royalty. Someone who came to power in birth under the divine right of kings. Those who claimed the loyalty of the people simply by being born into the right family.

In 1776 a new nation was formed with the unique concept “That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, *** That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”. Within those words are the construct of a government of, by, and for the People. It was an idea so novel as to foster a revolution here and in nations so inspired by our Declaration. Sadly, in today’s world, the principle of the rule of law for this nation has died through years of judicial and legislative twists that “evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”. Be that as it may, this country remains, in the rule of law, a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”.– Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457

The United States Constitution requires an oath of allegiance that we have assigned to every officer, from dog catcher, to jurist, to representative, to the president. In so doing we bind those public officials, and ourselves to adhere to the powers and restrictions laid out in the Constitution. The contract and the rule are pointless if both parties avoid and deny the force of law as it was laid out in plain language.

That “the Supreme Power” be the doctrine of this nation, it is only logical that the people constructed the State, and therefore the central government subordinate to the State. In 1776 when the Colonies “dissolve[d] the political bands” with England, they created a unique nation in law by vesting authority in the People who would be the caretakers of their freedom, rights, and liberty.  The first act of the Continental Congress was to lay out the doctrine of law, by which all law is to follow the fundamental principal that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

In simplest terms, this is a nation based on popular sovereignty. Everyone owes allegiance to the Constitution created by “We the People”. The sovereign, in international law, claims the right to prosecute, to defend, to wage war, and ultimately to control all that is within his/her sphere of influence. As a sovereign, I do not consent to any “statute *** extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”. – McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102

While our form of government is unique throughout the world, it is nonetheless a fact of law instituted and defined in our first two documents of Law: The Declaration, and the Constitution. They clearly establish that in our nation, “Sovereignty, is of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of the law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”. – Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

To protect and defend the principle function of a nation so fashioned in the matter that “the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people” there must be a method for caretaking. Of course, it should seem logical that a branch of government controlled by “the body of the people” is the most applicable method. Reason, backed by the historical record, would dictate that those assigned limited delegated authority may very well step beyond the bounds of their duties, and inevitably seek to seize power not granted. So, by logic this government must be formed in such a manner as to rest all power of the “Sword” in the hands of the people so that they may be the ultimate protector of home and heartland. In doing so, they maintain their sovereignty, their rights, and their freedom.

The means by which to secure all the principles of liberty was not a novelty to the Framers of the Constitution. It functioned for years prior to the revolution as the Militia, in which able-bodied men capable of bearing arms were the natural protection from insurrection and invasion, with the duty to enforce the law.

Each State in this Union is a free State, wherein the people are, in theory, the protectors of all their natural rights, and so the supreme authority over public officials. It cannot function in any other manner; else it would give control to those bent on usurping the power of their constituents. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, “To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master”.

Sir Michael Foster states “High Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance”. At that time, allegiance was ‘to the Crown”. However, in the United States where the foundation of the rule of law comes about from the people who are sovereign, then allegiance is owed to the people who are “the author and source of the law”. This is the logical conclusion taken from our founding documents, to construction, to the writings of our Founders, and to decisions in our courts.

18 U.S.C § 2381 – Treason “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned…”

Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization engaged in “levying War” against the United States? Many, is the simplest answer.

The Constitution of the United States enumerates several powers and restrictions. It is “the supreme Law of the Land” requiring that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation”. What it does not allow for is any government entity to create agencies that can draw the “Sword” against the People. The Constitution specifically empowers “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train” as the only agency with the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”, and for the purpose of the question imposed herein “repel Invasions”.

It is the Militia, the body of the People, that is the lawfully recognized instrument to fulfill the tasks commanded by the Constitution. Therefore, agents lacking such power, going afield to disarm the constitutional body, are in fact “levying War”. Since it is the People themselves who by their construction of and adoption of the  Constitution gave the Militia a power that supersedes any agency of government, then this is where allegiance must lie and be enforced. As noted “Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance”, the question of any agency going afield to carry out such disarmament commits the crime of “Treason”.

Does war include covert acts, propaganda, sabotage, and acts subverting the ability to wage a war and defense of the nation? Primary tactics in war include the destruction of armories, ammo depot’s, and manufacturing. Those tactics have been employed by our representatives and organizations for years.

In order for the constitutional Militia, “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion”, to function “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”, (U.S. v Miller 307 U.S. 174),the free flow of weapons in common use, and ammunition must be available through unencumbered trade. The people must have the ability to purchase and employ those weapons in common use for “soldiers”, which are the M16 rifle and the M4 carbine with standard magazines of 30 rounds at this time.  

“The Militia of the several States” is a constitutional power. This is not debatable. It must function as a recognized authority as institutionalized under the lawful guidance laid out in the Militia Acts and statutes. It is defined in law as all able-bodied men capable of bearing arms, but not restricted, and certainly not in times of emergency.  

How do we comply with the commands of the Constitution, in the case of “repel[ing] Invasions” if we cannot arm ourselves, and we are not properly trained to make use of those arms? If there are those who are working to guarantee that we cannot access the arms that would be critical in the defense of the nation they are waging war against the people and therefore the United States. The restrictions laid out, and the seditious acts to fully restrict can only be labeled as “Treason”. 

Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization who “in adhering to their Enemies, [is] giving them Aid and Comfort”? Many.

Mother’s Demand Action, and Everytown are just two organizations that are working tirelessly to disarm the American people who are “the unorganized militia”. There are others who are indeed subversively acting to limit the ability of the people to have access to weapons that would be needed in defense of the Homeland. For purposes of this article, lets focus on some remarkably simple facts and doctrines of law.

Under the delegated authority that we granted to Congress is the duty “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”. The authority is specific, Congress can organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. It has only that authority “We the People” granted. It does not have the power to tell the body of the people that it must be unorganized, disarmed, and in disarray if a national emergency should arise. Nor can congress place “Troops *** of War” over the civil authority that comprises the militia.

What this government has done with the help of its myrmidons in the media, and traitorous organizations is to distort the definition and function of Militia to usurp the lawful authority clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

In comprehending the parameters of treason, “Aid and Comfort” to our enemies abound. Consider that in WWII, the United States was able to produce an armada of ships, tanks, airplanes, and weapons in enough quantities to supply itself and two-thirds of the equipment needed by its allies. Today, we have sold enough sensitive military technology to the Chinese that they are able to build systems beyond what we produce. Here, the U.S. government has hindered the means to produce weapons systems by banning raw materials, closing smelting facilities, regulating, and taxing, out of existence, just about everything necessary for a sustained war effort. With this new administration moving back to the Paris Accords on Global warming, we will be further restricting our ability to produce while China and Russia go full bore.

Considering the unique form of government in the United States, do the definitions of “levying War”, “Aid and Comfort” expand the criteria by function and implication of our law? Without a doubt!

This is a nation based on popular sovereignty, wherein “the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”. In as much as the disarming of the instrument “necessary to the security of a free State” would jeopardize its very existence, any act to disarm Militia can only be seen as “levying War”. Sending agents into the field to physically disarm the people who have a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a free State and “repel[ing] Invasions” can only be seen as an act of war waged against the sovereignty and the allegiance held.

There are additional aspects to disarming the land-force that our law holds responsible for “repel[ing] Invasions”. Our enemies around the world are enhancing every aspect of their offensive and defensive capabilities. While the Russian’s and the Chinese are building new missile systems, and creating “super soldiers”, our commander-in-chief, along with our “woke military” are working on diversity and flight suits for pregnant women.

The military disparity arising between the U.S. and its enemies cannot be ignored. The Russian’s and the Chinese are not creating and augmenting their military because they do not believe in the possibility of war, they are preparing for war, and perhaps the initiation of such hostilities.

While they are on the move, the U.S. government, and its nefarious allies, to name just a couple, Mother’s Demand Action and Everytown, are diligently working to make sure that we will have no fight left in us to defend the homeland.

When considering the dynamics of war, in light of what Russia and China are now building, we must also realize that they can muster an army that could be three times the size of ours. However, they would consider that behind every blade of grass is a rifle. That was indeed an intent of the Founders of this nation when they recognized Militia as the first line, and possibly the primary means for the American people to “repel Invasions”. Guerilla warfare is intense and indeed exhausting for invading armies. Afghanistan has proved that time and again, and they lacked the resources that the American people maintained.

Does disarming “the body of the people” rise to the level of treason? This question came before the Supreme Court and is a matter of precedent.

As early as 1807 came before Chief Justice John Marshall the case of treason by Bollman and Swartwout. In his ruling the Chief Justice wrote “To complete the crime of levying war *** there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.”. Ex Parte Bollman 8 U.S. 75. Sending men or women afield to disarm the people by force “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” that would certainly “amount to levying of war”.

Under the direction of Congress creating acts in direct violation of its delegated authority, armed agents “a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war, and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime”.

Justice Marshall, quoting Justice Chase from the John Fries Trials, speaks of an “insurrection to resist or oppose”. How do we interpose his ruling with “the Duty of Allegiance” defined by Sir Michael Foster in his “Discourse on High Treason”?

I repeat as to what is “the Supreme Law of the Land”; “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel Invasions”. By oath to the Constitution, we are pledging an allegiance to our doctrine and rule of law. Attack on, or subversion of that allegiance would amount to “insurrection[]”, and when such acts by force take place it is, by law, history, and precedent “Treason”.

Calling forth the militia “to repel Invasions” is an affirmative act commanded by the Constitution. To send forth armed government agents “to resist or oppose” a constitutionally recognized authority and render them incapable of performing the high duty “to repel Invasions”, which would protect and defend “the security of a free State” is also an affirmative act. Can this be looked at in any other way as “to give aid and comfort” to an invading army? Who could defend such actions, particularly given the constitutional requirements?

The doctrine of law for this nation was established by our first law, The Declaration. This guides us to our understanding of treason from the perspective of rights and sovereignty. Our rights, as it is intoned, come from our Creator whether you believe in God, or the Universe as the author of all that lives. With that comes a point of governance that is unique. We do not bow to a sovereign placed on a throne, nor a president we select to do our bidding. The bidding that we established in a written contract. By that Law we do not prostrate ourselves before any “public official” that we have hired to abide the parameters of power that we have established. “We the People”  have instituted a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”, and with that “sovereignty”.

“Sovereignty *** is the author and source of the law”, and therefore claims and expects “allegiance” to the rule that we have created, not to acts “contrary to the tenor *** under which they were created”. One sovereign cannot impose its will upon another. In the case of the people of this nation, to attempt such an imposition by use of any force that invades the space and security of another is by all standards of law an act of war. 

Are agents of government going about armed and then in their actions disarming Americans of weapons “in common use”? Yes and Yes.

Are those agents acting under legislation “contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised?”. This particular question melds the legislators, the agents, and unfortunately the people into one contradictory force to the Constitution. The Constitution is clear, and while those in public service deny, distort, and violate its tenets, it is the people who themselves disparage the rule of law by allowing acts of treason to occur under their noses. Whether it is a clinging to ambivalence or ignorance, amid the act, there is nonetheless an obvious crime.

The scope of the Constitution sets out clearly defined Powers granted, and Powers denied. Within the powers stated there are delegated authorities, but only one specific power to execute or deter the acts of those who represent our rules. That authority rests solely in the hands of the constitutional Militia.

The arguments, or should I say myths and propaganda surrounding Militia today come from both sides. For the most part, neither side has a working knowledge of the institution. For the purpose of determining the crime of treason, we must consider the confounding claims made against an organized or unorganized Militia.

Congress has, by violation of their oath of office, extended their authority beyond that which is delegated by the Constitution, to wit, “The Congress shall have the Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. That delegated authority bars congress from un-organizing, disarming, or leaving the Militia untrained. This is not debatable. Congress may not act “contrary to the tenor of the commission”, which is to organize, arm, and discipline. Nor can congress redefine, disband, or render the institution impotent in face of defined law.

When such acts take place, it is only right and reasonable to conclude that the proper authority must use the force of law, and when that law is confounded by disregarding the rules, to which we are all bound, then the people must enforce their sovereignty. How do we do that if we are disarmed, if our “redress” is denied, and armed government agents are given a path to render the body of the people slaves to acts beyond the scope of the State?

“Treason” abounds, and it is not as if it is invisible to the public. It is right before our eyes, and the question then becomes, will we revitalize our Power?

1 Comment »

Who’s On First?

February 26, 2021 | Congress, Constitution, Judicial, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.

Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.

Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.

Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.

Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.

If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “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.”.

For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.

We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.

“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many cases, contradict the “appropriate meaning” of “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written”.

While the good intentions of a comedy team clever enough to use words to elicit laughter is commendable, the constant assault on the “appropriate meaning” of the words carefully debated and approved is unacceptable.

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” To circumvent the details specifically enumerated in the Constitution, modern day jurists, and certainly subversives within and without the government have circumvented the rule of law by promoting a doctrine both comedic in nature and disastrous in outcome.

The notion of a living Constitution has given rise to a policy of contorting the words in the document to be used in a manner contrary to their intended meaning. At the core of this vaudevillian show is a justice system that lacks continuity. It may have come about by accident, or perhaps it morphed into an immoral enterprise by the wrangling of social justice jurists and devious politicians seeking to undermine the rule of law.

The words in the Constitution have lawful authority. Lawful authority cannot be changed or reinterpreted to suit a political agenda. While many words can be employed in a different manner, words in law are not to be construed to create an ambiguity. If a word is intended to have a specific meaning not common place, then the act in question should make note of the condition. As for the U.S. Constitution, we cannot contemplate a meaning other than that which was carefully debated and agreed upon by both the Framers and the representatives of the People who ratified the Constitution. In the congress, the question of “Who is on first” appears to be the norm of political intrigue devised to obfuscate and confuse. Abbot and Costello would receive rave reviews in todays world politics and media collusion.

No Comments »

Words Are A Powerful Tool

February 10, 2021 | 1st Amendment, Founders, History

by Nicholas Testaccio

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan spoke words of encouragement, and determination that spanned the spectrum of history, law, foreign affairs, and the principles of this nation. Many of his speech’s came from writers who penned some of the most inspiring words to be delivered from the presidential podium.

The words I write here are my own coupled with quotes from our Founders and matters in law. I find that the history, the theory, and the rule of law make for a much more compelling method of conveying a point.

I am not sure that what I place on paper lives up to the standards of the orators who preceded my humble attempts at provoking or educating others. My desire is to reach those who care to learn, which is the basis for all progress. Statesmen, true statesmen, are both students of history and politics. While one study has its value in learning from the wisdom of the successes, pitfalls, and  failures of the past, the other seems to be an attempt at psychological aptitude.

History does repeat in a manner. There are those who rebuke that doctrine, but in some way the mistakes of the past keep presenting themselves in one form or another. Politics, as it is today, expresses itself in the form of propaganda, dystopian agenda, and powers that have no regard for the people who suffer under runaway insanity. It should be clear to those who have taken even a cursory look at the Constitution, that government has violated the tenets so clearly enumerated. The document that our servants swore an oath to protect and defend is desecrated at every clause and provision.

At one time we had men and women of steel in this nation. While men cast boxes of tea into the Boston Harbor, the women were securing their place in history. “Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard.”, wrote Hannah Winthrop.

John Adams asked his friend and clarion of liberty, Mercy Warren Otis to put her considerable talent to honor that band of patriots. In response she wrote “The Squabble of the Sea Nymphs”

BRIGHT Phaebus drove his rapid car amain,
And plung’d his steeds beyond the western plain,
Behind a golden skirted cloud to rest.
Ere ebon night had spread her sable vest,
And drawn her curtain o’er the fragrant vale,
Or Cynthia’s shadows dress’d the lonely dale,
The heroes of the Tuscararo tribe,
Who scorn’d alike a fetter or a bribe,
In order rang’d, and waited freedom’s nod,
To make an offering to the wat’ry god.

The poem goes on, but it was not the sum of Mercy’s contribution to the revolution. She wrote plays that helped to ignite the flames of insurrection. Yes, as all our Founder’s knew that the fight for liberty and the dissolution of the bond between Britain and the American Colonies was an act of insurgency worthy of a meeting with the gallows. By today’s standards of censorship, Mercy Warren Otis would have been banned long before the men of the revolution knew her name. She may very well have heard a loud banging on her door in the middle of the night by an agency acting in direct violation of the rule of law.

What a tragedy it would have been if we could not have the pleasure of her wisdom and skill with the pen. To be denied the words that expressed her hopes and fears would make us poorer by far. “I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

And what of today, the rhetoric, and propaganda that has been infused into the culture. Is there an honest voice that shouts of the impending tyranny that will be imposed on us all for the simple fact that we believe in individual freedom, property, and the means by which to protect those elements of our being?

To maintain what is essential to our liberty and the ability to prosper, earn, and enjoy those aspects of life, we must struggle on some level. Thomas Paine wrote, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” Tyranny presents itself, and yet we are wanting of the ability to recognize its talons and prepare ourselves for the conflict that must ensue.

We are now staring down the barrel of tyranny, and we refuse to acknowledge it is at point blank range. Mao Zedong coined the phrase “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”. While unconstitutional agencies are given more and more power to regulate and enforce the rules that they create, there are private organizations assisting the move toward complete government autocracy by demanding the disarmament of their fellow citizens. For their foolish aspirations I must remind these “useful idiots” that you will gain neither safety, nor security by taking the power of the Sword from those who could and would protect liberty.

It is now some Seventy-Five years since American Liberation Forces marched into concentration camps. There they found death, despair, and horror they could not have fathomed. Despite what you might believe, the Nazi’s left behind video evidence of what had been done in the camps. As told to me by one soldier who saw the malevolence; “We brought people from the town in to look at the films. They left in tears. They were all crying.” The story of one of our WWII veterans has never lost its effect on my desire to warn and educate. From those who turn a deaf ear I have learned that the awakening only comes at the hands of the experience. An experience that I fear I will leave to my children. It is a nightmare that plagues my heart and mind.

From the inspirational words of our forefathers to the eyewitness accounts of those who experienced the horrors of war, we become student of our past and the wisdom given to us. Some of those words encompass the fight for freedom, and others cast a warning against the dangers of tyranny and destruction. They are powerful tools to be used for the betterment of mankind.

As I write these words I must recall Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech in which he advised, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”.

Today, however, we cast aside the wisdom and the warnings of the past to a new use of words, propaganda. In today’s world Hitlers Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, would pale in comparison to the leftists, and their media allies.

It has been determined that words such as man or woman deny that what we have known, for eons, as a biological imperative are some how obsolete expressions of who we are, and how our body functions. Sexism and racism are all the rage. Women will now have to compete on a level playing field with transgender men, who still maintain the structure that makes them physically superior to a woman. Serena Williams, a tennis superstar, once noted that she had no business being on the same court as a man. Granted that she would probably wipe the court with most men, but most men do not rise to the level of someone like Novak Djokovic, or Rafael Nadal.

A star of the caliber of Serena Williams recognizes the difference so why is it that there is a considerable segment of the population, and now a man elected as president of this nation who cannot reconcile what is part of nature?

Perhaps an answer to such a question is beyond the scope of our “pay grade”. However, I believe the answer can simply be explained as indoctrination, perception, propaganda that is designed to achieve an outcome from the minds of the Fabians. An aspect of their agenda has always been eugenics, and perhaps the transgender movement will fulfill part of that goal. Aldous Huxley wrote “One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”.

If we are conditioned to believe that men and women are equal without any differences at all, then the line between what is necessary for humanity to survive and thrive becomes a blur. There are biological imperatives that sustain humanity. Men and women are created in the manner necessary for procreation. Are we headed toward a future where children are genetically built from the ground up where we start our lives in a petri dish? Will the children of the future be engineered to accomplish a specific task designed by the elites?

As the questions bounce about in my mind, I wonder if those who come after us will even know what life is supposed to be? Will they have access to our history? It appears from the destruction by leftists using the race card that the past will not enter into the stream of consciousness for anyone other than the elite.

Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”. Planned Parenthood thrives on the patronage of the democrats, yet they are perceived as the party who cares for the Black community. This sort of twisting of reality is pervasive in leftist’s and media allies. On the one hand they condemn people who have conservative views, while they themselves are the true racists.

I am wanting to comprehend what appears so evident to me is lost on the general public. There are enough warnings and regrets that we should be on our guard whenever we hear of any attempt by “government officials” to suppress our speech or disarm us. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lamented in The Gulag Archipelago, “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?”

How simple is it to look at the pages of history and garner some understanding that throughout the decades and the centuries that tyrants employ the same methods that accrue the same outcome? “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” A methodology that is rudimentary, but none-the-less enslaves our minds for “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.”. Patrick Henry chastised his fellow representatives with those words, and yet we sit here some Two-Hundred Forty Five years later as if that “song” had never been sung before, and never will again.

It is easy enough for the blind to go about unseeing, and for the deaf to go about unhearing for we would much rather deny the truth that will cause us discomfort now only to regret it later when sorrow and pain becomes reality.  

No Comments »

Ball of Confusion

January 19, 2021 | 2nd Amendment, Congress, Constitution, General, Judicial, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

Dr. Miles Bennell here singing, “Great Googamooga, can’t ya hear me talkin’ to ya? It’s a Ball of Confusion. That’s what the world is today.”.  

Yes, that is what I awoke with in my head this very morning. I showered, shaved, brushed my teeth, and gargled so that I might look and smell good for my computer. Heck, who else am I doing it for? I am restricted from moving around, going down to the local watering hole, and perhaps imbibing a beer or two with the regulars. If I go anywhere, the fascist mask Nazi’s demand that I must wear a face obliterator to prevent the spread of germs for a virus that doesn’t really appear to be as deadly as they keep promoting.

My head has been in a perpetual state of turmoil as I watch my country torn apart by psychotic, megalomaniac’s, power hungry bigoted sociopaths that occupy both the halls of government and the media.

By the way, it is extremely important to note that those people are chosen to govern by our vote, a process that has now proved that the Founders were correct in setting out parameters for eligibility. What does a person think about when they cast a vote for someone who not only is an incessant liar, but does the exact opposite of what they promise? Top that off with a two party system, and tyranny, turmoil, and dissolution are inevitable.

Onward!

It has been over two months since the election, or whatever else you might call it considering the confusion, and we are headed toward an administration that has promised to hunt down Trump supporters and make them pay. Yes, that has been the rhetoric that has come from that side, and it is most certainly validated by last year’s turmoil in which several cities, including DC, were set ablaze, pillaged, and plundered. Just like the good old days. Wonderful!

I did not hear people condemning the violence then. While video of fires and looters were all over, the media proclaimed it was mostly peaceful, and our newly elected vice-president was proclaiming the virtues of the rioter’s behavior, she was also assisting in their release from jail.

But! But when protesters stormed the capital there was no end to the condemnation by both sides of the aisle. Accusations of sedition and treason were spewed from the leftist media and incoming communist party members. Trump was blamed, again, by his mere existence.

And of course, after a second impeachment, the FBI comes out with the fact that they had received information that the storming of the Capitol was planned. What else is new? It’s not that we don’t already know that the DOJ is thoroughly corrupt and filled with democrat partisans.

For those of you who do not know, Kevin McCarthy played the role of Dr. Miles Bennell in the 1956, original edition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I have made mention of the character before because I believe, unswervingly, that I am watching the people of this nation, and probably the world being consumed by some sort of entity that does not allow for rational thought.

Follow me now, especially those who are condemning the violence and warning that “they”, the democrats, are coming for our second amendment rights. I may have to wander a bit before I come to my pressing question, but I promise I will arrive at some point. My mind is all over the place right now trying to understand what is taking place.

Mark Levin pointed out that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia the democrats went around the State legislatures by going to the executive and judicial branches in order to affect changes in voting. It is clear as the nose on your face, but since you are wearing that ridiculous mask you may not see your nose. I should also note that the full videos of Levin and two constitutional law professors has been removed from YouTube.

To provide for the selection of the delegates to the Electoral College the U.S. Constitution requires “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” I am not going to discount the Twelfth Amendment, which explicitly explains how the election of a president is to take place. I’m simply going to recommend that you go read it, and hopefully understand that the current process is a corruption of the Electoral College.

In support of the claims that the election was corrupt, I contacted my State representative here in Pennsylvania to advise him of the law. He told me that there was nothing that the legislature can do. I objected, but he told me that their counsel advised them that there was nothing that the legislature could do.

In my quest for truth, justice, and the American way, no I am not Superman, I sent my representative and the leadership the following:

—–I am linking to McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892). Of particular importance, according to SCOTUS comes at 34 & 35 where the Court rules;

—–“The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts *** This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions *** Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.”

—–I hope that McPherson clarifies the fact that the legislature has the ultimate authority to place the electors, and in particular when public officials and courts disrupt, corrupt, or denigrate the rule of law.

I didn’t even receive a thank you constituent for showing us the law, and the courts confirmation that the Constitution means exactly what it says. I am inclined to wonder what type of representation we have when a constituent tells you that counsel is wrong, here is the proof, and that proof is not acknowledged, but more importantly ignored.

State officials not only violated the constitutional provision, but the legislatures also ignored and “abdicated” their duty. Of noticeable importance to this is the fact that the lawyers for the States legislature gave them poor, and incorrect counsel. I am going to say it again, most attorneys are clueless useful idiots chained to a corrupt judicial system.

Where does this lead me?

If you have read any of my articles, you know that I have been a proponent of the clauses in the original Constitution that command that there be Militia, in accordance with law, that has the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. It is with purpose and conviction that I support the revitalization of the lawful militia operating within the statutes and organizational structure that recognize a credentialed entity under the Constitution.

There are components to this that I have written about in the past. One such aspect is the fact that the Framers of the Constitution did not need to debate the structure of “the Militia of the several States”. As Justice McReynolds wrote in the 1939 Miller decision, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union *** With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. *** The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. *** The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.”

With a decision explaining the authority, its need, its distinction and significance, Justice McReynolds clearly ruled on the purpose of an organized, armed, and disciplined Militia in law, and history. Compare that to the decisions made since then. Justice McReynolds is concise, and points to the record made in “the debates *** history and legislation *** and the writings of approved commentators” to ensure the validity and standing of Militia as a constitutional authority.

Before going further, I want to state for the record that the disarming of people in any nation of this world is not for their safety. The purpose, as should be obvious to all, is to insure the continuation of, and the power of a few elite bureaucrats such as the European Union. To me it is clear that the world will devolve into a tyrannical oligarchy, wherein the common man and woman will be left with nothing but fear.

On to my frustration and distain for those in the so-called alternative media who appear to have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our form of government.

I recently heard the following from a show that claims to be pro-second amendment; “they keep their foot on our throat, and that’s just the way it’s going to be. Unfortunately, there’s nothing else we can do about it. We cannot do anything about this.”. What???

This from a supposed supporter and fighter for the right to keep and bear arms. The question that should be obvious is, what is the purpose of the second. I refer you to my quote from the Miller decision above. Aside from that ruling, one must wonder, in the minds of those who profess support for the second, is the reason the Framers created a Bill of Rights with such an amendment.

It would appear that from the perspective of those so-called patriots and pro-second people and organizations that the amendment has no real purpose. They deny that the first thirteen words have any real meaning. What do they call those words? A preface of some sort. Because the Constitution must be read in its entirety, and that eliminating words and clauses that are not actually part of the preamble makes no sense at all.

I think that that assault on the Capitol said everything we need to know about those who claim to be supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. The cry from most was, We do not condone the violence, We abhor the violence, We denounce the violence, and in the same breath we are warned that they are coming for our second amendment rights. What it tells me is that you have absolutely no knowledge of this area of the original Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights.

You are already condoning violence and you are not astute or knowledgeable enough to know and understand the depth of your ignorance. When the Constitution, and any act “contrary to the tenor under which it was created”, and thereby prohibited by the provisions so enumerated are condoned, that represents an act of violence against the sovereignty of the people. The FBI, ATF, DHS, State Police, and any agency that usurps the power “to execute the Laws of the Union” is a direct violation, and any action taken by those unconstitutional agencies is an act of violence.

Richard Henry Lee wrote, “First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.”.

From one side of your mouth, you condemn violence, while the other side condones violence under the guise of some political power. For those who do not comprehend, people perform tasks of violence when under the umbrella of governmental authority.

In words that you might be able to understand, “You are full of _ _ _ _.”. Get it? This was supposed to be a nation of sovereigns. That has been abdicated without a whimper. When push comes to shove you will do nothing but cry, scream, and beg on your way to whatever form of hell the communist party, now taking power, will have in store for you and your children.

Why, in the name of reason and logic, would the Framers recognize Militia as a constitutional authority, not only in the second, but also in Article I, § 8, Cl. 15, Cl. 16, Article II, § 2, Cl. 1, if it held no meaning in the context of our doctrine of law? Militia as Justice McReynolds ruled by the study of “history and legislation” defines the lawful entity as “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.”. Surely not a bunch of people running around claiming to be an impotent militia, nor the National Guard, which is specifically created under a different section and clause of the Constitution, certainly not resembling the lawful definition of Militia.

So, why is Militia recognized as a lawful authority named four times within “the supreme Law of the Land”? Can I hear from one supposed pro-second attorney, organization, man, or woman who purports to be a patriot, or some so-called constitutional scholar? I’m waiting!

In a cauldron of brewing ignorance, throughout the so-called pro-second community, there must rest a deep desire for self-destruction. If you are averse to using the law as the Founders intended, at least at some level, those of you in the business end must have some desire for expansion and profit? I once again direct you to Justice McReynolds, who I reiterate cites “history and legislation” for his ruling “further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”.

I must ask the likes of Colt, Ruger, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, Federal, Hornady, and others who manufacture arms, and ammunition if they do not see the potential of having the militia in the light of “the supreme Law of the Land”? Even those committed to firearms training would benefit from the increase of those who would need the training “necessary to the security of a free State”.

As Dr. Bennell watched in horror as the pods consumed all those around him, I am watching my country being devoured by, not only those who hate liberty, but also by those who pretend to support freedom.

I can only conclude that you will go quietly into the night for lack of knowledge. As Jefferson put it, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”.

No Comments »