Defending The Republic

Isn't it amazing how ignorant the American People are when it comes to the Constitution? The Esteemed Readers of this blog realize that the rights which they have are not granted by government, but are protected FROM the government.

The Constitution for the united States of America
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16


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;

In the post of June, 2014 titled:  The Rise of the Citizens' Militia: The Defenders of the Republic it is explained how the militia(s) were the defense of the communities and the States, long before the Revolution was fought, and why they were included in the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

In times of need, the militias were called upon, by the Sheriff or even the Governor to defend the State(s) from within. The government has decided to ignore the Constitution and the Rights of the People and codify the definition of militia to suit the government.


10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—

     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

     (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not      members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)


The Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C.) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. 
Contrary to the definition of militia,  10 U.S. Code § 311 defines a military force and not a civilian militia. The very fact that US Military are 'quartered' within the nation during time(s) of peace is in itself a violation of the Constitution. 

References:

The Rise of the Citizens' Militia: The Defenders of the Republic

Who Were The Minutemen?

The History of the Militia in the United States
https://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

What about Reason and Law

The un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon has stated her intent to enact by Executive Order a Ban on some types of firearms, mainly rifles and carbines. The executive action can only be understood as a restriction or infringement of our unalienable right to self defense and defense against deadly force toward others.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

~ Sam Adams ~

I see where the Bush administration has initially indicated support for extending the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on scores of semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that the Clinton Administration imposed on America back in 1994.  I am seriously disappointed in that decision if it holds.

Laws against violent crimes such as murder, robbery or assault are already on the books and do not require a gun to be used in their commission to be considered criminal acts.  The only thing any criminal needs to carry out such deviant behavior is some means of providing a force advantage over the victim and he could use almost anything for that.

A criminal can just as easily kill or rob with a knife, a baseball bat or his bare fists so what difference does it make which gizmo is used to provide that force advantage over the victim—none whatsoever to my way of thinking.  It’s the act itself that makes such behavior a crime, not the tool used.

Laws are needed to deal with harmful deeds inflicted on people by the misfits of society—those whose behavior deviates from the accepted norm and thus becomes injurious to others.  They are needed to deal with the behavior that inflicts such harm —nothing more complicated than that. 

Crime is the result of socially unacceptable behavior and it is the behavior that determines the crime.  The operative word here is behavior not the implement used by some degenerate. A criminal can choke a person to death with his own mother’s apron strings as well as shoot him.  Is the victim any more dead if a gun is used or is the criminal any guiltier?  I think not. 

There are already laws punishing deviant behavior therefore to my way of thinking, laws pertaining specifically to guns are laws focused on objects incapable of behavior.  A mother’s apron strings can be just as deadly as a gun if the one exhibiting such criminal behavior chooses to use them in that way so should we have laws governing apron strings? Gun-centric laws only restrict, limit, prevent—infringe—upon your right to keep and bear 
arms and do nothing to address violent behavior.

Those 20,000 gun specific laws such as limited magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, registration, licensing, waiting periods, and concealed carry without government permission as examples, do nothing but limit your right of access to guns—infringements upon your rights.  Such is not the mark of a free society.  What harm is there in a 15 round magazine or carrying a gun under your coat?  It’s when that gun is used to harm others that the crime is committed and it’s the criminal behavior that is the crime not the gun.  The gun is obviously incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever—but we all know that don’t we? 

Keep in mind the Second Amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  There are no qualifiers to that statement, as “…shall not be infringed except for…” and you fill in the blank with any of those 20,000 gun laws.

If I could ask the founders their opinion on this question, I would ask if felons, the insane or the immature should be denied access to firearms.  Felons have proven to be unfit members of society and by their own choices have surrendered their rights to fully participate in our society. The insane are not responsible members of society for medical reasons.  The immature, let’s say those that do not know the difference between life and death, and that do not know the difference between right and wrong, and have had no firearms training for the sake of argument, are not yet fully responsible because they are still in the formative years of their lives.

So call me whatever you like but the laws against murder, robbery, and assault exist in Common Law and should be seriously enforced with harsh punishment for violating them—the type of weapon used is entirely irrelevant to the behavior involved.  We should address the behavior of the criminal and leave the law abiding among the rest of us alone. Our right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and not a Government granted privileged to be assigned or removed at the whim of anyone. 

Of course, such an approach would allow the general population to be fully armed and capable of resisting an out-of-control government if need be, so maybe that wouldn’t do after all—perhaps that thought just scares the living daylights out of some politicians.  Might that fear then be the genesis of the 20,000?  Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, 

“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom.”

The Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment is easy to understand. 
It is fair to say the Founders and Framers obvious intent was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action.

So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?”  Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law.

Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says?  To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid.  

Let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted.  Please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. 

One note before starting:  I suspect the Esteemed Readers will never see any of these quotes or rulings either reported or cited on the evening news but that would be just a guess.


1803:  George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."


1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."


1859:  Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”

“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.”  [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]


1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)

Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."


1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."


1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."  


2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson.

Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time.

It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians.

James Madison had it pegged, 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

If the un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon begins legislating from the Executive Branch of the Oregon State Government, she shall be subverting the intent of the Oregon State Constitution, the Law, and the Legal System she was sworn to uphold. Then again, maybe she does not care about reason, the Law, or the Legal System.

It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece.  Once it is lost however, it might be lost for generations. Generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost.

Sources:

Excerpts from:  What The Courts Said by Colonel Dan

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2015/01/one-more-time-gun-laws.html

Are You An American?

How you identify yourself tells a lot about you. We all like to be a part of a group that stands for something that is important to ourselves, but how many truly stand for what is right?

Are you a Democrat?  Do you believe that government must provide you with basic needs? Do you believe that government must provide for your education, health care, and your personal safety? Do you believe in majority rules? Do you believe the government by legislation must define what a marriage is? Do you believe that government must regulate the food we eat, the air we breathe, the types of arms we may possess, the lands within a State for environmental causes?

Are you a Republican? Do you believe that marijuana must remain prohibited by law? Do you believe a strong military presence around the world is in the interests of national security? Do you support the Patriot Act, NDAA, and feel the NSA spying is a necessary infringement for the sake of national security? Do you believe that immigration can be regulated based on religious beliefs? Do you believe that the federal government and the laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court are valid? Do you believe that lowering income taxes for the employed and for corporations will stimulate the economy and create jobs? Do you believe that the currency of the United States must be controlled by a central bank?

If you answer yes to any of the questions above, you are NOT an American. You may live in America, but unless you stand for the Sovereignty of the Individual, the State as a free nation, and the federal system of governance as a limited body politic, you are NOT an American.

We are constantly being bombarded with left-right, conservative-liberal, and yes, Democrat-Republican, as our choices. Chosen by whom? I did not choose any of these labels for myself. I chose to make my own decisions, based on my knowledge and understanding of freedom and the limitation of governance prerequisite in a free society.

So often are we compared to the nations in Europe, our clinging to guns, where most 'civil societies' have banned guns. The latest attacks in Paris demonstrate how dangerous it is for the People to be unarmed and defenseless. How can we call ourselves civilized when we have such mass shootings and gun violence in America?

First, the places where there is so much gun violence are places where the public are restricted by force of law from keeping and bearing arms. And second, gun free zones are the sites of the mass shootings, again where the public is defenseless and only the criminals are armed.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" does not mean a police force nor a military presence. It refers to We the People, you and me, as we are the militia and duty-bound to enforce the laws pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. "... the right of  the People to keep and bear arms shall be infringed." Simply stated, all gun laws infringe on the right of the People, therefore ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.

In the wake of the attack on defenseless individuals by radical Islamic terrorists, the person who has the audacity to call himself President, instead of standing up as an American (some think he is not) he hopes that you will be in such a state of fear that you will clamor and demand stricter gun control. But that is a topic for another day.

Reference Links:

One More Time:  Gun Laws in America

The Second Amendment:  Meaning And Purpose

Is American a Land of Cowards and Slaves?

The Rise of the Citizens Militia: The Defenders of the Republic

Planned Paranoia:  The Fear of Firearms

An Open Letter to the Congressman

I received an email response from Congressman DeFazio and thought I would share it and my reply with the Esteemed Readers.


"Dear Mr. Marsico:

Thank you for contacting me regarding right-to-carry legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

I am once again a cosponsor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would allow an individual with a concealed carry permit to carry firearms across state lines. I voted for this bill in 2011. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill before Congress adjourned. 

I have supported other right to carry legislation as well. For instance, in 2009 I voted for legislation to allow an individual to carry a concealed firearm in U.S. Parks and wildlife refuges in accordance with state law. That legislation is now law. I also cosponsored and supported passage of legislation to allow retired law enforcement officers to receive reciprocity to carry across state lines. That legislation became law in 2004.

Again, thanks for your message. You can be sure that I will continue to fight to protect the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens against further abridgement by the federal government.

Sincerely,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER DeFAZIO
Fourth Congressional District, Oregon"

And my response:

Dear Representative DeFazio,

While I appreciate the fact that you voted for the Reciprocity Act, it was after all, a Harry Reid controlled Senate that sat on it, was never brought to a vote, and never became law, along with over 300 other bills sent out of the House to the Senate, but let's not quibble.

There are too many infringements on our rights now, to extend the 'privilege' of reciprocity to retired law enforcement officers, which they already have in many states, is a slap in the face to each and every American who is forced to be licensed and registered with the government instead of exercising the right to keep and bear arms without any government infringement. All Americans have the right to carry openly or concealed firearms of any type.

I am quite knowledgeable of the methods employed by statutes and codes to make privileges seem like rights, so the very idea 'law-abiding' citizens require you to protect us from the government is absurd. What you really need to focus on is how to keep us 'law-abiding' citizens from coming after all the criminals in government who can't seem to follow the rule of law and obey the Constitution of the United States. Your purpose is to represent, serve, and protect the People, not to rule over them.

'Shall not be infringed' is by no means a suggestion Mr. DeFazio. I suggest you pass the word to the rest in Congress, that We the People are getting pretty fed up with government that does nothing but waste money and abolish rights, only to then give privileges to select People and those who come here breaking our laws. Our patience is waning.

All gun laws are unconstitutional!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/

One More Time: Gun Laws In America

Regardless of which level of the federal government enacts or passes them, all current statutory laws or regulations regarding the prohibition or restrictions of arms are unconstitutional with regard to Americans. The acceptance of BATF & E (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) regulations involuntarily binds one to ALL such rules and regulations under Statutory Public Policy, a jurisdiction outside any recognized by the Constitution of the united States of America, but within the jurisdiction of the corporate constitution known as the United States Constitution as adopted by the foreign-owned corporation known as the United States Government.

The original proposed Constitution of the united States of America, ARTICLE I, Section 8: Powers of Congress (Enumerated)
(Clause 16)

"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;"

As amended prior to acceptance by the People, and ratification by the States, the revised Virginia Bill of Rights was included which prohibits any system of governance from passing laws infringing on, but not limited to, specific rights of the individual.

As ratified, the Constitution of the united States of America, the Second Article of Amendment, clearly states,

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


The framers and founders were explicit in their meaning, having just fought to maintain the right of self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms was primarily meant as a means of self-defense and in particular in defense from an oppressive government, while today's corporate public policy administrative courts have debated the meaning and the extent to which the corporate government is limited. 

The first part of the Second Amendment was and is meant to establish the right of the Sovereign State to defend itself and the Republic against enemies, both foreign and domestic. This included threats with native nations as well. In the case of defense of not only one's self, but the common defense of family and community is the mainstay of the Second Amendment. The inalienable right to keep and bear arms to hunt and fish the land was always understood to never be prohibited or restricted in any way in order to feed and clothe oneself and family.

As the corporate public policy administrative courts themselves are limited by the United States Constitution (corporate), and whereas such limitations do not provide the public policy administrative courts the agency to interpret the Constitution of the united States of America (the original ratified constitution of thirteen amendments), the erroneous assumption that the corporate public policy administrative courts may do so is based on a fallacy that these courts gave such an interpretation in Marbury v. Madison. In that case the court decision was based on a law that was unconstitutional, therefore there was no compelling argument for the plaintiff, since his suit was based on a law that was void. The decision therefore was correct;  however, the current ensuing corporate agency (the U.S. Supreme Court) continues to interpret the meaning of the Corporate United States Constitution with regard to questionable statutory legislation and render decisions that only apply to U.S. Citizens, i.e. corporate citizens.

Under the Law of the land, common law or Constitutional law, rendered decisions of the corporate public policy administrative U.S. Supreme Court are void since their decisions only apply to U. S. Citizens:  Not Americans.

See also:

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-second-amendment-meaning-and-purpose.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-second-amendment-its-not-just-about.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-rise-of-militia-peoples-army.html

The Rise of the Citizens' Militia: The Defenders of the Republic

We are witnessing what may be a turning point in this nation's history. It will fall upon the will of the People whether or not the Republic will be restored or  the Republic remains a corporate entity, the UNITED STATES.

The privately-owned major media is focused on any conflict in the Middle East, while thousands of foreigners are illegally streaming across our southern border, and the media reports nothing while ICE buses illegal aliens to different parts of the country and releases them. But there is another more telling story that is not being reported.

The governors of Arizona and Texas have not formally called forth the constitutional Militias of the States. The Citizen Soldier is the primary constitutional defense of a State's freedom and rights and many have volunteered to defend these States. While Americans are being killed, by members of Mexican drug cartels and coyotes, neither governor has taken action.

A corruption of the rule of law and tyrannical actions by those chosen to protect and serve the People cannot be tolerated or liberty is lost.  There is no 'moderate' solution to radical oppression of the rights of the People. Ultimately, it is not only the right, but it is the duty of the People to defend those rights. Who else but YOU is responsible for your life and property? Who else but you is responsible to protect your family? It is NOT the responsibility of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

There are many books and essays written about the history of militias in America. That history is no longer taught in public schools, because US GOVERNMENT propaganda has made militia equivalent to 'militant' and that is made to look like extremist, which in turn equates to terrorist. Strange how the words are twisted to mean something entirely different than what they meant when they were written into the Constitution of the united States of America in 1787.

The Constitution prohibits standing armies in times of peace and yet by using words, they circumvent the law. Does a 'War on Poverty' constitute a need for armed troops? How about a 'War on Drugs'? Okay, then what about the "War on Terror'? It is my understanding of the definitions of the terms and the preciseness of the words chosen, that WAR is DECLARED by an act of CONGRESS against another nation or group of nations who threaten the sovereignty of the People and the lands of the States.

The States along the U.S./Mexican border are being invaded. In some cases we have learned, drug cartels have established their control over the border, and in other reports, Mexican Federales having crossed the border, fired  weapons, although whether they were firing upon other Mexicans or Americans is unclear.

What is clear to me at least, is the media focus has been on young children coming to America to flee their nations in Central America. Why isn't ICE/INS turning these foreigners back? Why is the Border Patrol babysitting and being nursemaids to all these illegal immigrants Mexico helping them? Why are we always the ones who are extending charity?

We are a nation in debt. We have to deal with that and no other nation will help us. We need to help Texas and Arizona People to secure their borders with Mexico. Any and all businesses that can send materials to accomplish the goal must step up and do so.

We cannot depend on any level of government to do the right thing, so it falls to the People of the Republic to do the job!

My Response to Senator Merkley's Campaign Manager

I certainly must admit that these people have unmitigated gall! After removing my letter from his Facebook page and then removing my comment regarding the same, I published both Senator Merkley's email and my reply for the Esteemed Readers of the Fix America blog to peruse. But instead of addressing me, the non-representing Senator and his staff not only ignored me, but had the audacity to send me a solicitation for campaign contributions for his re-election!

Following is that solicitation email and my response. I am sure you agree with my position and encourage you to share these posts and write to your own elected representatives and see where they stand on issues of rights and constitutional legislation.

"Fred, 

As Jeff Merkley's Campaign Manager, it’s my job to help re-elect one of the strongest progressive champions in the U.S. Senate. 

How will I do that?  By building an impressive grassroots campaign that takes Senator Merkley’s progressive message to every community, every neighborhood, and every doorstep in Oregon.  To do that we need you, and supporters just like you, to join our campaign.

Grassroots support matters, and it’s a way to help the causes you care about. We aren’t just working to win an election.  We’re working to raise the minimum wage, stop corporate polluters, hold Wall Street accountable, take on the giant biochemical industry, fight for marriage equality, and restore the American Dream for middle-class families.

So join us.  We’ve set our biggest monthly goal so far – an aggressive $48,000 target.  There are just seven full days left in February, so chip in $7 right now and let’s make it happen!

When we all stand up, everyone from the Koch Brothers to the Tea Party Republicans take notice.  And make no mistake: they’re coming.  They’re making a list and Jeff Merkley’s on it.  As Karl Rove has said, “Oregon might be next.” 

When the attacks come I want to make sure we’re ready.  $7 today makes you a part of this fight. 

Join us!

Alex Youn
Campaign Manager
Merkley for Senate"



My reply:

Alex,

The first line says it all! "...one of the strongest progressive champions.." and that is the problem! We the People do not want strong progressives, we want strong statesman who will stand up to those who dare oppose the rights of the People and try to justify passing legislation that erode our rights.

As I posted on the Senator's Facebook page (which was removed along with my comments about that removal) and on my blog, I feel that all gun laws are unconstitutional, therefore we want our representatives to stand with us in fighting these blatant attempts to disarm the People, and not stand with those who want to take our arms and rights away.

I want you also to understand that I am not a member of a political party nor do I support them. As far as I am concerned, party candidates represent the party agenda and not the will of the People. Senator Merkley has on numerous occasions demonstrated his loyalty to his party and not his constituents by his voting record.

If you think the 'Tea Party' is coming to Oregon, I have a revelation for you:   We are already here! 

I wish you good luck in convincing other Oregonians to back more socialist/progressive party politicians. I certainly will not be in your corner.


In liberty,

Fred Marsico
Patriot and Sovereign

Our Government Has Been Busy

Before and during the coming economic collapse, a state of National Emergency will be declared by the person occupying the White House. This will be followed by the announcement of Martial Law. Considering the current events which are in direct alignment with documented plans for totalitarian one-world government, (white paper plans published by the Tri-Lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Club of Rome), martial law will be imposed without official dissent of Congress, because upon declaration of National Emergency, Congress is dissolved. This takes place because of Executive orders that fall under the general heading or classification of 'Continuity of Government' that have been issued by various presidents since the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Martial law is military rule imposed by force upon civilian populations in a time of war or during a (supposed) “State of Emergency”.
The following conditions of rule can be expected to occur once the privately owned major media T.V. news anchors tell the people not to panic, but that a State of Emergency has been declared due to the collapse, and a (supposed) temporary state of martial law has been declared, which will be (supposedly) rescinded once the State of Emergency has passed. 

What the news people won’t tell you is that given the history of martial law, the suspension of such draconian methods for Totalitarian Rule are far more difficult to achieve than the original imposition. Another bit of information the privately owned major media has failed to inform the Citizens of the United States is the real amounts that have been spent since the (supposed) War on Terrorism began, approximately $130,000,000,000,000.00 [trillion dollars]. As far as the economic collapse is concerned, the total indebtedness of the United States is some where near $150,000,000,000,000,000.00 [quadrillion dollars]. An amount that can NOT BE REPAID:  the U.S. can not even afford the interest payments. THERE WILL BE NO RECOVERY UNDER THE CURRENT FISCAL SYSTEM.

Jefferson's Observations:  Future Slavery Of The People

"If we run into such debts as that must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must labor sixteen hours in the twenty- four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; 

And the sixteenth [hour of labor] being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain [be satisfied with] subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet [being goons for our oppressors by securing] their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers;

And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on ‘til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train, wretchedness and oppression.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)” 

Esteemed Fix America reader, ask yourself a simple question, why would a dictator or group of dictators (see the NDRP for the ten or so regions the U.S will be ruled under) ever voluntarily relinquish their dictatorial powers?  I have searched through the history of the world and found that force has been the only effective method for removal. Whenever the “Powers That Be” decide to impose martial law, the following items can be expected:





1. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ENDED - Under martial law, the U.S. Constitution is suspended and the citizens immediately lose all the protections, safeguards, and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizens also lose all rights and privileges guaranteed under The Bill of Rights. The Dissolution of the Constitution is replaced by a combination of F.E.M.A. Powers, Department of Homeland Security Powers, NDAA Laws, and NDRP Provisions.

2. CURFEW ENFORCEMENT - Anyone caught outside after curfew can be shot dead. There are no exceptions for personal emergencies unless of course, these people have some sort of official written permission or are in possession of other material which gives them a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.

3. WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS SUSPENDED - This means that soldiers (think DHS, TSA, U.S. ARMED FORCES) can enter your house, or arrest you on the street without warrants for any reason stated, and can direct you to F.E.M.A. Camps for processing without explanation or access to legal counsel. They can hold you there for months, even years, since there are no time limits imposed on how long you can be imprisoned.

4. PERSONAL FIREARMS WILL BE SEIZED-  Armed Forces can enter your home and force you to surrender any weapons you have, without regard to your constitutional right or need to bear arms for your self-defense. If you refuse, you can be shot dead in your living room for resisting or non-compliance, and all your possessions seized. If you’re lucky, you might just get Tasered, or butt-ended with an M-16 or AK-47, to eventually wake up in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Detention Center with an Identification Number which you will go by as a “name” instead of your old name, the one on your birth certificate.

5. PERSONAL PROPERTY CAN BE SEIZED - This means that under the excuse of “requisitioning”, Armed Forces can remove you from your home by force, and seize both your home, and its contents, as well as any vehicles, or other items you have on your grounds. They also can claim the actual real estate of the acreage as well. If you refuse or resist in some way well….I guess you can fill in the blanks or use your imagination.

The following list of Executive Orders covers all the above and more and have already been made law by current and past U.S. presidents. They become effective immediately upon declaration of a national State of Emergency or Martial Law:

Executive Order 10995: 

All communications media will be taken over by federal authority: radio, television, websites, newspapers, even CB and Ham radio systems. Freedom of expression, otherwise known as the First Amendment will be canceled. 

Executive Order 10997: 

All fossil fuels, related substances as well as all electrical power, both corporate as well as privately owned devices and generators will be seized by the federal government.

Executive Order 10998: 

All food, means to produce such food and related products and machinery, warehouses and collectives which obviously include corporate and private farms will be seized by the government. You will not be allowed to hoard food since this is regulated. If you are caught hoarding food, you can be shot dead, or perhaps you will be lucky enough to be Tasered, and sent to a F.E.M.A. camp and be immediately classified as a “domestic terrorist”, otherwise known as an “Enemy of the State”.

Executive Order 10999: 

All modes of transportation will be placed under complete government control. Any vehicle can be seized.

Executive Order 11000: 

All civilians will be drafted into forced labor without compensation which the T.V.. anchors will euphemistically call “volunteer labor” at a variety of designated work places under federal supervision. Watch old film reels of the slave labor at Nazi prison camps, or if you prefer, go watch Cool Hand Luke, to get the more modern updated “American flavor” of what it’s like to be part of a slave labor chain gang. Please remember, you must always remember, that if you go against the Boss, you will be accused of “A Failure To Communicate, Cooperate, Follow Directions, etc.” followed by punishment or death.

Executive Order 11490: 

Absolute dictatorial “presidential” control will be exercised over all US citizens, business as well as church institutions during a State of Emergency where martial law is declared necessary.

Executive Order 12919: 

At the direction of the president, allows various Cabinet officials to take over all aspects of the US economy during a State of National Emergency.

Executive Order 13010: 

This Executive Order allows F.E.M.A. to take control over all other government agencies.

Executive Order 12656: 

“ASSIGNMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES -

This order allows for the declaration of a State of Emergency during natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergencies that seriously threaten the national security of the United States. This order allows for total, unquestioned federal takeover of all local police enforcement agencies, as well as local price fixing and wages. It also forbids reassignment of personal financial assets within or outside of the United States.

The plans were written under President Ronald Reagan and are public information. Look up REX 84, (a readiness exercise?  for what eventuality) and depending on how well you look, you will find its Sub-operations; Operation Power Geyser (think Executive Order), Operation Cable Splicer (think federalization of all policing agencies and federalization of all civil administration), Operation Chaos (think of all the things our government has done to wreck the economy, poison the air, land, and water) Operation Granite Shadow (think NORTHCOM), Operation Night Train (think 1,000 + boxcars with shackles reportedly stored in the Northwest), Operation Garden Plot (think burial tubs and giant ovens next to railroad spurs), and related operations (think Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Artichoke, Operation MKDELTA, Operation MKULTRA, Operation MKBluebird, Operation MKMonarch, Operation MKNAOMI and other Operations or Projects (think U.S. Army's Project X, Project Chatter, Transhumans, the list is endless and its all public information.

Most people just hope to be able to pay their bills and get by, and enjoy what little time they have left. They do not want to read all this information. They do not want to be informed before they cast their vote. They do not want to think. They want to vote the way they were trained, Democrat or Republican, and it has gotten us where? These transition operations have been or already are being achieved as you read by Executive Orders which bypassed the U.S. Congress.

The police state is almost in place, the surveillance systems are being installed everywhere. DHS has purchased enough hollow point close-quarters ammunition to kill every American 10 times over, has purchased more than 2,700 Armored vehicles that are bullet proof from .50 cal. down, has purchased 7,000 full auto M 16, purchased 30,000 modern guillotines reportedly Stored at Fort Lewis, has purchased 1,000,000 + plastic burial tubs which can hold three bodies, and more interesting purchases. The Department of Homeland Security has hired and is still hiring guards for FEMA Camps and they carry machine-guns..

NDAA-National Defense Authorization Act- 

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in what the government defines as being "terrorism". The controversy was to their legal meaning and potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely without charge or trial could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.The bill passed the House 283 to 136 and signed by Barack Obama on New Years Eve 2011, while the rest of us were distracted celebrating the New Year festivities.

NDRP-National Defense Resources Preparedness- Executive Order 

Please see article, Busy Bees Make Shiny New Hive)

The NDRP exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim. It basically says that the Government can take what it wants from anyone by any means if it is necessary for national security. Please guess just who defines 'necessary for national security'.

If you thought it could never happen here, think again, think again, think again, think again... 

Wake someone up and suggest that this article should be read, then wait until it is read.

With no personal will or identity of our own, we will eventually (after just a few generations) not know or have personal memory of what we've lost, because history will have been rewritten.

Related Post:

Just Around The Corner:  or Obama Hear and See All 1984 Plan