“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, and repel Invasions”. 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 to 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