Immigration, Lawyers, Taxes, and the RKBA

February 19, 2019 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Judicial, Militia, Sovereignty, Taxes

by Nicholas Testaccio

I have struggled over the last few months to complete an article. It’s not because I don’t have something to contribute to the latest problems. It’s certainly not because there aren’t many issues that should be commented on in the face of the propaganda that is being spewed out to the general public. It’s definitely not because there isn’t a myriad of questions that never seem to be asked.

I am frozen by the fact that despite the evidence placed right in front of us, most Americans will do nothing at all, while some will do nothing more than contribute to the downfall by either applying the same methods that are proven failures, or actually promoting the divide.

One of the issues we face today regards immigration. Let’s set the record straight right from the start so that readers will go into this article with a clear picture. I am not against lawful immigration wherein a country has the Sovereign authority to protect its borders, and its people from harm of any type.

The Declaration of Independence reads that “[King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…”

At the time that our first law was ratified, the population of the Colonies was approximately Thirteen Million people who occupied approximately Four Hundred Thirty Thousand, square miles, or more than Two Hundred Seventy-Five Million acres.

America was sparsely populated, and would certainly benefit from an influx of people, particularly those who would be needed tradesmen. There was also the fact that Westward of what was to become the United States, was a vast landmass. The Founders were cognizant of the fact that there were Hundreds of Millions of acres that could become productive parcels of land.

Simply put, the Colonies needed an influx of migrants who were capable, adventurous, and hungry for Liberty as it was hitherto unavailable to the World’s population. America needed immigrants willing, and able to create a great nation.  

Do we need migrants today that are unskilled? Do we need to have millions come across our borders who pillage our coffers? Do we need to have those entering the country and shouting that we should leave here as it is no longer our country? Do we need to have violent gang members coming here to establish their brand of crime?

The answers to these questions should be obvious. We need to protect our sovereignty, and not allow this nation to become a staging ground for civil war, and the loss of all our rights.

Next up is the question of taxation. Despite what may or may not be believed about this point of law, taxation as it is today saps billions of dollars out of the economy and accomplishes next to nothing other than pilfering the wealth of the nation in order to promote an oligarchy. It is done by convincing the people that taxing provides for the running of government, offers assistance to the needy, and a host of other, often unnecessary, and unconstitutional acts.  

Taxation as it is applied today is unlawful to begin with. As the Supreme Court stated in Stanton v Baltic that “it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”. So why are we paying a direct tax on the wages, or income we receive?

In 1947, undersecretary of the Treasury Beardsley Ruml concluded that if we start withholding small amounts of money from paychecks of Americans that they would simply go along with it. 26 U.S.C. requires that the Secretary send, by December 31 of that particular year, a notice to anyone who owes money to the government. Ruml reasoned that people would not voluntarily comply with a large bill received at the end of the year. However, taken in small doses there would not be any pushback.

While there is no law that anyone can find that requires the individual living and working in the United States to pay a direct tax on the money he earns, the government takes Trillions of dollars from the American people by the hands of an unchartered agency that the Supreme Court has stated was not created by any organic act of Congress. It simply exists to terrorize the public into handing over their property to an out of control government.

So, the question often comes, why do people who don’t pay taxes go to jail? Simply put, we currently lack the courage, spirit, and knowledge to act as the Founders of this nation did and had hoped that future generations would. However, there are a few out there who rise to the occasion, listen, comprehend, and act accordingly; see The Government v Whitey Harrell.

What Marcy Brooks, the foreman in the above case, did was to go beyond the indoctrination, and take a stand for justice. That jury did something that most would never consider. They rendered a just decision based in fact as applied to law, and justice.

Next up, the legal profession and the courts. Those who opposed the Constitution during the ratification debates realized that given time, and the position that they were granted, the judiciary would corrupt the rule of law, and centralize power to the government. It should be fairly obvious that we now have a judiciary that does not follow the limited delegated authority granted by We the People in our Constitution. The judges placed in such high positions work to implement their own agenda, and thereby place liberty in jeopardy.

Anyone who has gone through the court system can tell you that it does not serve justice at all, it functions to create a criminal base, and therefore wealth for those who belong to the private organization known as the Bar. It is also creating a class of elites who are not brought to justice for any of their crimes.

While I could go on about the condition of our legal system, none said it better than H.L. Menchen who wrote; “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost half.”

Now we come to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or correctly applied, the Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. I have a news flash for all those who believe themselves to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Every word in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is just that. Those words have no meaning at all unless We the People are capable of, and willing to enforce them.

Warning, no matter how you present the issue, explain it, instruct, discuss, or argue, you’ll receive push-back from those pretenders who believe they know the issue without studying it to any degree.

How do I know this? Because I’ve offered it several times in articles, discussions, forums, and presentations of the path to learn what the Founders intended. I’ve gone as far as to ask others to post a specific piece to the forums they visit. I asked for one legal brief to be posted that was authored by a man who has written more on the subject than anyone else I’ve ever read or heard of. The claws immediately came out from those pro-2^nd people who more than likely have never read a word of the original intent, and law on this subject.

In the brief the author wrote; “the Second Amendment must be read in its entirety. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 572-573 (1933). The Amendment’s goal is “the security of a free State”. It declares “[a] well regulated Militia” to be “necessary” for that purpose. And to guarantee that such Militia exist, it commands that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Howsoever that “right” embraces “Arms” convenient for an individual’s self-defense, it unquestionably protects all “Arms” useful for “the people[’s]” collective defense of “a free State” through the efforts of “[a] well regulated Militia”. That is the Amendment’s central concern. For all citizens are duty-bound to defend their polity. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262-263 (1934).”

The brief goes on in such a fashion as to explain not only the Right, but also the Duty required to protect and enforce the Right. However, the hate immediately came out, so I jumped in to ask if those deriding the brief understood it? Needless to say, I was declared as a troublemaker for daring to ask such a question and exhibit a willingness to explain it as a student of the subject.

The Constitution starts, “We the People of the United States”. It does not read the government of the United States, the representatives of the United States, or the oligarchs declaring such and such. It is a unique exercise of the relationship between the People, and the governments that they create in order to secure their rights. It should be obvious, but since it appears not to be, it must be clarified that power must rest in the hands of the People with whom “sovereignty remains”. How do we exercise that power, maintain our sovereignty, and a free State?

“One constitutional responsibility of the Militia is “to execute the Laws of the Union” (and the laws of their own States as well, because they are “the Militia of the several States”). U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15 and art. II.”

“To understand it, the Second Amendment must be perused “in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted”. See Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895). Throughout the 1700s, Americans knew, as a matter of law as well as fact, that “a well regulated militia [is] composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”. Va. Declaration of Rights (1776) art. 13. For statutes of the Colonies and then the independent States had provided that:

• With limited exemptions from service, all adult able-bodied free males from about sixteen years of age to superannuation— “the body of the people”—were enrolled in the Militia. No Militia law prohibited superannuated men from volunteering for Militia service, however.”

Here is where the ignorance, and the derision starts. Let me first state that I have explained and convinced a few as to why we actually have a Second Amendment. They were open minded people who had not been assimilated into the Borg mentality of the individual rights theory.

When I was introduced to the NRA decades ago, one of the first questions I asked was, what does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” mean? I was told that it meant nothing, and so I went on trying to ascertain more information on this all-important right. It took me years to realize that I was not only being misled, but that the deceit was intentional, and therefore undermined the principle of the rule of law. “[i]n expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. *** Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” –  Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 570-571

If the opinion of the Supreme Court in Holmes v. Jennison is to be taken as value, how can we make the critical error that the first Thirteen words of the Second Amendment mean nothing? Or that the meaning of the words in Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16 can be changed to something other than what the Framers assigned? What else are we willing to allow? Will we allow all our rights to be diminished?

The Militia Statutes provided the Colonists with the basis for enforcing good conduct, public safety, community cohesion, and therefore the ability to perform complete background checks without improper and questionable government intervention into our private lives. The proper function of Militia also provided the community, in general, on the spot Emergency Services in the form of Minute Men, and Reserve Militia who would perform the same role as technicians, so-called law enforcement, and nearby practical and proficient medical service. All the things that today’s public clamor for, are an underlying benefit of the form and function of Militia as the Framers recognized and incorporated into the Constitution.

All of the roles noted above can be accomplished by assigning existing agencies into Militia under the control of the People rather than bureaucrats, and politicians whose main concern is to retain their power. The funding, formation, and function could be made much more efficient with the proper application of law, and particularly with the People properly monitoring the monetary aspects of the community.

Why can’t it work? The answer can be found in the historical record. Throughout history you will find that the majority not only doesn’t want to be involved, and also by their actions they will support their own demise. This is especially notable in the supposed pro-2^nd community where they will deny, and disparage the law as it is explained throughout the historical, and legal record.

A basic explanation of why we have a Second can be read in a case that supposed supporters avoid; U.S. v Miller.

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

“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.”

“With obvious purpose” seems to be lost in translation on those who claim their support of what is simply applied as a Right, rather than the intended Duty. Herein lies the straightforward issue that history repeats. History is replete with the record that once the subject requires a Duty, the  majority will not only avoid it, but they will go on the attack against any service to the nation, the State, and the community.

There is also the issue of educating the community on the subject matter. It is in the best interest of organizations such as the NRA, and GOA to keep its membership ignorant. The memberships, and contributions keep flowing with the false hope that some expert is doing the correct job. They’re not. Read the oral arguments from Heller. Alan Gura was unable to answer the questions of Justice Stevens. He was totally unprepared for them, and lost on the most important aspect of this vital piece of our law. You cannot preserve liberty if you subscribe to the notion that the State can regulate a right, or the People have no fundamental Duty and vehicle “to execute the Laws of the Union”.

The Duty to Keep and Bear Arms is such an important provision of our unique Republic that it cannot be ignored in its full context. Yet, the pro-2^nd community look at 14 words of the 2^nd amendment and they think they have the full story. It is an excuse to avoid our fundamental Duty to community, but also a prescription for failure as a free and independent people.

The volumes of information on this part of our law are quite large. It can be very difficult to even obtain the statutes. Never-the-less the law surrounding Militia is out there for anyone who wishes to educate themselves on the true nature of this law. However, the propaganda has been so persistent that even those who believe themselves to be supporters would much rather find any excuse they can come up with to disparage the truth regarding the RKBA.

Militia is part of the Constitution because the Framers were well versed in the history of the world, and the character of men. Who we are and what we are, is abundantly clear when it comes to the subject of the 2^nd Amendment. We would rather delude ourselves by thinking we are fighting a worthy battle rather than admit that State after State is essentially being disarmed. In the long run, I may not be around to see the fall of the RKBA, but my sons and grandsons certainly will. That will be a day that not only America laments, but also the rest of the world.

Never-the-less the supposed pro-2^nd people will act in any fashion they can to avoid the truth of the matter. Stop pretending that you’ve been insulted, or the messenger is too caustic, or that you’ve even an inkling of this most important aspect of a free nation. The nation is under attack from several sectors including those who pretend to be educators, and friends. Fifty years ago, the NRA presented a misinformed public with a losing strategy, and the public proved at least some of the Founders correct; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson