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

The Farce of Debate: Rand Paul Shines and Nobody Notices

I was so disappointed in the way the debate was handled, I really could not sleep last night. I tossed and turned thinking about how badly Rand Paul was treated, not just by Donald Trump, which is somewhat expected by now from the bully billionaire, but from the CNN panel of moderators who only allowed him to speak when his name was mentioned by the other nominees.

Pompous platitudes and innuendos abounded, while Dr. Paul was given the obligatory opportunity to defend himself slightly. It appeared that Trump at center stage was in complete control of the panel. 

I finally dragged myself out of bed at 11:00 AM to have some coffee, and ran across the following article, which perked me up a bit.

I present it in its entirety to the Esteemed Readers of this blog for their assessment.


"Donald Trump does not like Rand Paul.

In the weirdest non sequitur of a often-incoherent second Republican presidential debate, the billionaire front-runner for the party nomination declared, “Rand Paul shouldn’t even be on this stage. He’s number 11. He’s got 1 percent in the polls. There’s too many people onstage already.”

As he has been on so many points, Trump was entirely wrong on this one.

Paul distinguished himself with coherent questioning of mass incarceration, calls for criminal-justice reform, and aggressive referencing of the injustices that extend from a failed drug war. The senator from Kentucky had one of the best moments of the debate when, during a back-and-forth over Jeb Bush’s youthful inhaling of marijuana, Paul put things into perspective for the former Florida governor: “Kids who have privilege like you do don’t go to jail. But the poor kids in the inner city still go to jail.”

And when the debate turned to foreign policy, Paul made more sense than the rest of the runners combined.

“I’ve made my career as an opponent of the Iraq War,” declared the senator, who reminded the crowd that “The Iraq War backfired and did not help us.”

“I’m not sending our sons and our daughters back to Iraq.” —Rand Paul
Those lines did not earn Paul a lot of applause Wednesday night. This Grand Old Party does not well remember—nor respect—the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about a military-industrial complex or the example of “old-right” Republicans who opposed military adventurism.

But Paul displayed a steady awareness of that history. His great contribution to the debate was to offer an alternative to the bombast and bluster that came Wednesday night from many of the other contenders—and that, frankly, comes on a regular basis from prominent figures who position themselves across the political spectrum.

The senator warned, “”If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you’ve got 14 other choices. There will always be a Bush or Clinton for you if you want to go back to war in Iraq.”

While others spoke of putting boots back on the ground in the Middle East, he dissented, saying, “The first war was a mistake and I am not sending our sons and daughters back to Iraq.”

Paul’s dissents extended beyond objections regarding the Iraq imbroglio—as was appropriate during the course of a debate that produced plenty of objectionable statements from the crowd of Republican front runners and pretenders.

Early in the evening, several of the contenders were stumbling over one another in express their readiness to rip up the Iran nuclear agreement, with Senator Ted Cruz trumping them all by promising, “If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”

A few minutes later, in a break from what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie referred to as “this childish back-and-forth” with Trump and Fiorina over who was the worse CEO, Fiorina said there would be no back-and-forth with the president of Russia. “Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all,” she announced. “We’ve talked way too much to him.”

This is where Paul really stepped up.

Noting the location—the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California—Paul said with regard to the “wouldn’t talk to him” line: “Well, think if Reagan had said that during the Cold War? We continued to talk with the Russians throughout the Cold War which [was a] much more significant [challenge than] where we are now.”

Paul continued:

Should we continue to talk with Iran? Yes. Should we cut up the [Iran nuclear] agreement immediately? That’s absurd. Wouldn’t you want to know if they complied? Now, I’m going to vote against the agreement because I don’t think there’s significant leverage, but it doesn’t mean that I would immediately not look at the agreement, and cut it up without looking to see if whether or not Iran has complied.

The same goes with China. I don’t think we need to be rash, I don’t think we need to be reckless, and I think we need to leave lines of communication open. Often we talk about whether we should be engaged in the world, or disengaged in the world, and I think this is an example of some who want to isolate us, actually, and not be engaged.

We do need to be engaged with Russia. It doesn’t mean we give them a free pass, or China a free pass, but, to be engaged, to continue to talk. We did throughout the Cold War, and it would be a big mistake not to do it here.

There was a similar moment when the question of intervention in Syria arose.

The Kentuckian said:

I think this gets to the point of wisdom on when to intervene and when we shouldn’t. Had we bombed Assad at the time, like President Obama wanted, and like Hillary Clinton wanted and many Republicans wanted, I think ISIS would be in Damascus today. I think ISIS would be in charge of Syria had we bombed Assad.

Sometimes both sides of the civil war are evil, and sometimes intervention sometimes makes us less safe. This is real the debate we have to have in the Middle East.

Every time we have toppled a secular dictator, we have gotten chaos, the rise of radical Islam, and we’re more at risk. So, I think we need to think before we act, and know most interventions, if not a lot of them in the Middle East, have actually backfired on us.

There are plenty of issues on which Rand Paul is wrong. He is not so steadily anti-war as his father, former congressman and 2012 presidential contender Ron Paul, or as “old-right” Republicans like North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones Jr.

There are plenty of things that Paul has said and done that merit skepticism, and opposition.

But the senator—and his dissenting views with regard to foreign policy—belonged on the main stage Wednesday night. Indeed, it was Rand Paul, not Donald Trump, who made Wednesday night’s gathering of Republican presidential contenders a debate. "

Thanks to John Nichols, The Nation’s Washington correspondent.
http://www.thenation.com/article/rand-paul-made-some-of-the-few-sensible-points-of-the-whole-debate/

Who Were The Minutemen?

In the early days of America as colonies, they were for the most part left to their own devices and defenses. It was therefore necessary that all men kept and bore arms, to protect that which they labored to build and own.  It was from this need for a common defense among all the people, that agreements were made to provide able-bodied men to take up arms when an alarm was sounded.

It became necessary then to make formal agreements of association to establish a militia of the people, that is a group of fighting men forming the people's civilian army. They were not an army under the control of a central government, rather they were ordinary men upon who duty deemed it necessary to train and be ready to come to the defense of their fellow colonists.

When the British stopped supplying gunpowder the colonist had  to make their own. When the British came to confiscate their arms, the colonists rebelled. There were many other things that were done to the colonists by the Crown, but as loyal subjects, they filed their grievances in the proper manner, and witnessed themselves being treated as less than the subjects in Great Britain were treated. But it was the attempts to take their arms that finally was the last straw or the "shot heard 'round the world"!

So who were the 'Minutemen' and what did they do to earn such a name for themselves? According to American Revolutionary War history they were a select group of well-prepared militiamen, who were so named because of  their rapid response to a call-to-arms when they were needed to defend against an enemy attack. Today they would be the Rapid Deployment Forces of an elite military. The Continental Army called up these minutemen for rapid response to British attacks. 

So to recap and put it as plain and simple as can be, I am no longer 'duty-bound' to join a militia as I have reached past the age of sixty, however my patriotism and sense of responsibility will keep me 'in the fight' to restore the Republic that has been taken from us all.

In light of the fact that we are being invaded on our southern border, with several reports of Mexican troops crossing and firing upon Americans, that surely looks like an act war, declared or not. Although the federal government is constitutional bound to protect the borders from invasion, they have not only ignored the duty, that are aiding and abetting the invasion!

There have been calls to arm and deploy the militias, to defend the border states from this invasion, but not by the governors of those states. The Governor of Texas has been complaining about the lack of federal support and has asked militias NOT to intervene as the Texas Department of Public Safety will respond. The problem is, they are grossly over-matched for the task.

It will then fall upon the sheriffs of those border counties to call forth the militia, and deputized them to defend the land. It is the duty of We the People to respond to that call, and be prepared to become part of the forces under orders of those officers assigned to lead.

The Fall of a Nation

America is under attack and there are no defenses being provided by our government. In fact, the government is bringing the invasion to us by training and arming foreigners. Reports from anonymous Border Patrol agents indicate that among those who are invading our nation, are Islamic Jihadists who are being trained by DHS as 'soldiers' in case of 'civil unrest' in US cities. In other words, they will have no problem killing American civilians, including women and children. They are getting fed and clothed, and they are being sheltered and trained to kill Americans. Oh yes! This is happening right now while your attention is being drawn to what is going on in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe.

Isis fighters raise their weapons as they stand on a vehicle mounted with the trademark Jihadists flag in Anbar province. Photo: AFP/GETTY

Thousands of lives and over a $1,000,000,000,000 US are lost. Tens of thousands more US troops are maimed by the atrocities of terrorists claiming to represent the 'Religion of Peace.' And like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, the person occupying the White House is campaigning and golfing while Baghdad is about to fall. And this just in:  The ISIS terrorists found chemical weapons belonging to the Iraqi Army and manufactured no doubt in the United States.  The very same weapons that for years, the Democrats in Washington have denied existed.



The border with Mexico is now controlled by the Mexican drug lords, while U.S. Border Patrol Agents have been reassigned to babysitting and nursemaid duties. And instead of doing their constitutional duty to call up the citizen soldiers to defend their states, the Governors of Arizona and Texas are doing nothing. Calls are going out for militia support by the communities being threatened, and some unconfirmed reports of American casualties have been coming forth as well.

Congress has not protected the People who elected them and instead are looking at how to help Afghanistan and Iraq. Directly negotiating with terrorists and exchanging five high-ranking Taliban 'generals' for one deserter and possible enemy collaborator, arming terrorists with American weapons to overthrow the governments of Egypt. Libya, and now Iraq, while training illegal immigrants on US soil to fight us. And now bringing back a Libyan national who claims no direct responsibility for the American live lost nor any remorse, to the States for criminal prosecution instead of being tried as an enemy combatant in a military court. He is a terrorist just like the ones exchanged for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

Impeachment was the answer for merely breaking the law, but Congress has not acted. Indictments need to be served to many members of this criminal regime yet Congress does nothing. I cannot understand why the Republican led House of Representatives has not acted on Articles of Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. I have heard an excuse making the rounds claiming that it is an exercise in futility so long as Harry Reid and the Democrats control the Senate. That is not a valid reason to not live up to your oaths of office and do the right thing under the Constitution. Unless you have broken that oath and no longer represent We the People.

As was emphatically stated in the Declaration of Independence two hundred and thirty eight years ago,

 "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It seems irrefutable that our government no longer represents the will of the People and definitely is operating without the consent of the governed who are We the People.

Because of the immediate danger of this unabated invasion, we must act now to secure the border ourselves and deal with restoring the constitutional republic once we can save our lands from invasion.

Reference Links:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/doj-memo-confirms-terrorists-have-crossed-the-border-pjm-exclusive/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

Are You American?

Most people who are citizens will answer "Yes!" Citizenship alone does not make you an American. No, being American is not the ability to vote or wave the flag and sing the national anthem.

The peoples who came to America did so for freedom. Freedom to worship as they believed, freedom to work and keep the fruits of their labors, free to defend themselves from criminals.

You are an American if you refuse to obey ANY law that is unjust, because being an American is a way of life, ii is about principles and not ideology. It is about ethics and morals, regardless of where you get them. It is about the liberty to live as you feel is best for you so long as you honor and respect that same right of everyone else.

The People of the colonies chose members of their communities to represent them, and they met and formed rules of association with each other, rules or laws that provided mutual respect for liberty and rights. They formed a confederation among themselves and established a system of governance in which they could live in peace and prosperity. They committed themselves to rules of order, and when someone's life or property was endangered or taken from them, they established laws to provide justice to the victim(s) and their dependents or survivors.

Justice. That is the purpose of law. Being a 'law-abiding citizen' does not make you an American. Being American is exceptionalism because unlike every nation before it and since, the constitutionally limited republican representative system of governance, was truly a form of self-governance. The 'government' in that sense was a body politic that was a representation of the will of the People. It was not an entity of its own nor did it hold any power over its People. After all, the People created that government and gave it duties and responsibilities, while explicitly prohibiting that government from infringing on the liberty and the rights of the people.

It was by definition a form of anarchy, that is anti- monarchy, or anti- oligarchy. It was against any form of government that ruled by force and suppression of free will. And yet it did have rules and hence laws. Laws to provide justice for those accused and convicted of crimes against the People.

We now are faced with the cold, hard facts that we no longer have a constitutional republic. That was taken from the People by treasonous acts of then President Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1871. The former made all citizens insurgents and enemies of the government, and the latter when Congress unlawfully created a government for the District of Columbia and created a corporation which would then replace the People's constitutional republic with a corporate government, which represents the financial interests of the corporation and not the People.

The Esteemed Readers of the Fix America blog and its Facebook page will know that we are in grave danger and it will only result in our nation falling if we don't act now.

Reference Links:

Articles of Association

When Law is Crime

Frédéric Bastiat:  The Law

A Voice From The Past: General Smedley Butler Speaks Outstandingly

By 1933 corporate America was firmly established in the UNITED STATES of America, corporate ideology had already begun to supplant the ideals of free market commerce and trade (capitalism). This should be keep in mind as you read General Butler's comments regarding corporate racketeering.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." 

Semper Fidelis

The Second Amendment: It's Not Just About Keeping Arms!

Most of the focus in general regarding the Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America, is on the second clause of that amendment, that is, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

While doing research on the first part of that amendment, I discovered some very interesting posts, one of which I feel is relevant to share with the Esteemed Readers of this blog.

I therefore present the post in its entirety with no embellishments of edits of my own.




"Some Factions Allege That True Constitutional Militia Exist, Despite the Absence of Actual Proof. —Here’s the Straight Dope

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Daniel Vincent McGonigle III

By Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
May 7, 2014

Here’s some of the straight dope from true American history, and analysis.

Alleged “Laws” that were not “made in Pursuance thereof” do not qualify as legitimate proof; e.g. such as the repugnant federal and state Militia statutes passed into “Law” since 1903, currently codified at 10 USC 311 and the 50 State Militia Acts.
The April 29, 2014 commentary “The States and The Sovereign’s . .” posted here re-asserted some previously asserted legitimate proofs that stand un-rebutted, and the same commentary asserted some new proofs, through analysis of historical and constitutional language in American documents and publications, and specific statutory analysis such as of the repugnant 1916 oxymoron “Unorganized Militia”, a phrase that had no historical or constitutional basis whatsoever.

By constitutional enumeration and definition, Militia are State institutions only, to be composed of county and local command structures per State statute; structures which are in turn composed of the whole body of the People. After reading and studying the following key words, phrases, and clauses in American documents, ask yourselves—DO the ALLEGATIONS of State Militia institutions existence, that must meet the requirements and mandates confirmed by the language in these American documents, CONTAIN ANY TRUTH WHATSOEVER? What will your legitimate answers to the posed questions reveal about alleged Militia existence? (Upper case emphasis added by DVM3)

“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, COMPOSED of THE BODY of THE PEOPLE, TRAINED TO ARMS ..” – Virginia Constitution, Decl of Rights, Sec 13

“.. EVERY STATE SHALL ALWAYS KEEP UP A WELL-REGULATED and DISCIPLINED MILITIA ..” – Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, Art VI Clause 4

“.. THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS ..” – Constitution for the United States of America, Art I Sec 8 Clause 15

“This CONSTITUTION, and THE LAWS of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF .. SHALL BE the SUPREME LAW ..” – Art VI Clause 2

“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.” –Second Amendment

“MILI’TIA, n. .. The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.” – Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Story on the 2nd: “§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. ..” – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States(1833) Joseph Story. First part of Sec 1890 on the Second Amendment

Short list of questions:
1. Do the alleged Militia—the National Guard, the State Defense Forces, or the private groups, meet all the requirements of Militia existence, Militia duty and execution of enumerated Militia powers in any emergency? Are they composed of the whole body of the People, as required? (Determine your own legitimate answers to the questions after analyzing all document quotes.)
2. Did any true constitutional Militia composed of the People provide all the security necessary before, during and after Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? How about before, during and after western wildfires? How about before, during and after central tornadoes?
3. Are there any Militia, governed by State and federal statutes, in the four southern border States that have been called forth to guard and protect the southern border, on a rotation basis?
4. Are there any Militia in the country that have been called forth to actively execute the Laws?—i.e. taken lawful actions to enforce the Constitution, Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, or taken lawful actions to stop unlawful actions?
5. Have all able-bodied 17/18 year olds in any local, county or state jurisdiction, been automatically enrolled and reported to their first Militia muster on the town green?
6. What federal or state statutes are the alleged Militia citing as authority, that enumerate the body of the People, each able-bodied person with rank in organized governmental command structures, or that enumerate the body of the People to execute the Laws and enforce the Constitution and Laws made in Pursuance thereof?
7. Are alleged Militia activities limited to domestic activity on American soil?
8. Do alleged Militia members keep their Arms and accoutrements required for Militia duty?
9. Have any alleged Militia units or members made lawful arrests of tyrants, usurpers or criminals?
10. Have any alleged Militia provided lawful security at elections, both outside and inside polling places?
11. Have any alleged Militia secured the health and safety of the food supply, the water supply?
12. Have any alleged local, county, or state Militia units representing the People, the Sovereign, decided the unconstitutionality of alleged “Laws” not “made in Pursuance thereof”, and taken lawful action against said unconstitutional “Laws”?
13. What is the Second Amendment about in its totality? (Few seem to know.) Have any of the recent Second Amendment rallies been true Second Amendment rallies, or just RTKBA rallies?
14. Are alleged Militia (NG, SDF) under local-county-state control, pre-1903 state & federal statutes, and Clauses 15/16/2nd Am per constitutional requirements, or are they under Clause 12 “Armies” federal control through the State Adjutant-General?
(Clauses 11 “ declare War”/12 “raise and support Armies”, and Clauses 15/16 “Militia”, were never intended to all meet and work together, except against a foreign military invasion on American soil.)

Authority sources and quotes from American documents:

“The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence . . . all the parts of this Confederation .. bring a true account and number of all their males .. from sixteen years old to threescore ..” – The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England, May 19, 1643

“That the lieutenant, or in his absence the chief officer of the militia, in every county, .. shall list all male persons above the age of eighteen years, and under the age of sixty years, within this colony .. under the command of such captain as he shall think fit . . . That every person so as aforesaid inlisted .. shall be armed in the manner following, . .” – Virginia Militia Acts, April, 1757

“Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence .. the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.” — Samuel Adams, Boston Committee of Correspondence Report, November 20, 1772

“.. a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; .. that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Constitution, Decl of Rights, Sec 13

“.. every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, ..” – Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, Art VI Clause 4

“The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. .. the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” – Massachusetts Constitution, Decl of Rights, Art XVII

“That all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, . . shall be inrolled or formed into companies, of three serjeants, three corporals, a drummer and fifer, and not less than forty, nor more than sixty-five, rank and file; and these companies shall again be formed into regiments of not more than one thousand, nor less than five hundred men, if there be so many in the county. Each company shall be commanded by a captain, lieutenant, and an ensign; each regiment by a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and major; and the whole by a county-lieutenant. . .” – Virginia Militia Act, October 17, 1785

“To .. provide for the common Defence ..” – Constitution for the United States of America, Art I Sec 8 Clause 1

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” – Art I Sec 8 Clause 15

“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;” – Art I Sec 8 Clause 16

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; .. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ..” – Art VI Clause 2

“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.” – Second Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment

Around the same time that President Andrew Jackson was routing out the international banksters, a warning was issued by Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries:

“§ 1890. … And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”
– Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story. Last part of Sec 1890 on the Second Amendment

Some private factions allege the right or power to form Militia themselves without superseding civil authority, statutes and regulations, because in their words the government at all levels has failed to adhere to the Constitution. Usurpation is allowed to occur due to lack of political vigilance by the People. Is it just a coincidence that the same private factions never wanted any part of pursuit of political action or remedy? The defeat of the 2009 Mass. “Pandemic Bill” after passing the Senate 36-0, proves the potential of political success when pursued. According to State Constitutions (2 cited above), military power must always be subordinate to the civil power or authority. Civil authority must be politically adjusted or changed first in order then to adjust or change the military power. State legislators now have the duty and power to revitalize the Militia power with one statute. If legislators continue abdication upon a major emergency, the Sovereign would have the duty and authority, in order to protect life, liberty and property, to make necessary emergency adjustments to restore lawful civil authority in order to restore the Sovereign People’s enumerated Militia powers and duties in “the common Defence” of natural rights.

What do the enumerations, requirements, and your own legitimate answers reveal? What is revealed—of the restorative action necessary to be executed by State legislators? Is the necessity revealed of what must be done by statute?—To bring the mandated State Militia institutions back into proven constitutional compliance, including satisfying the mandate “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, and including satisfying the mandated duty and power of the States and the People to Enforce Our Constitution through execution of the Laws.

__________________

Dan McGonigle spent almost thirty years in the building and construction industry, from carpenter to project superintendent, and held numerous licenses, certifications and registrations related to expertise, supervision, safety and instruction in the industry. He has a B.S. in Construction Management from Wentworth Institute of Technology. He was active in politics and ran for State Representative in 1994. From May through October, 2009, Mr. McGonigle wrote a constitutional analysis of, and instructed and led citizens inside the Massachusetts State House in instructing their legislators in the House of Representatives on—the dangers of public health emergency bill S.2028 which had passed the Senate unanimously 36-0 in April, just after the false world-wide swine flu scare. After several months of lobbying and instructions, the House passed a different version in October, and the draconian S.2028 died in conference committee. After Mr. McGonigle witnessed a speech by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. at the Boston Tea Party event at Faneuil Hall in December, 2008, and after finishing his State House work on “The Pandemic Bill” in 2009, he immersed his studies in the works of Dr. Vieira and the constitutional history and principles of the power of the sword. Mr. McGonigle wrote his first book “Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic, Vol. 1 in 2013. He publishes short commentaries regularly at EnforceOurConstitution.com and in the blog section of CampConstitution.net, he posts regularly on Facebook, and he’s a regular instructor at Camp Constitution—the week-long family camp held annually in mid-July.

Sources of Pertinent Information:

http://EnforceOurConstitution.com

http://CampConstitution.net — Camp blog

True Vs. False Militia & Why the Difference Matters, Parts 1 to 3, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., July 30, 2007 — http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin61.htm

http://ConstitutionalMilitia.org

“On A Militia Mission”, The New American, January 6, 2014, by Joe Wolverton II, JD — http://www.scribd.com/doc/200991264/On-a-Militia-Mission

“No Militia Means More Intrusive Law Enforcement: Our Framers didn’t envision a free State with the current level of government control”, USAToday, March 9, 2014, Columnist Opinion by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, JD — http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/09/second-amendment-militia-guns-military-swat-constitution-column/6230769

Edwin Vieira, Jr., PhD, JD—Archive of Commentaries, 2005 to Present — www.NewsWithViews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm

Constitutional “Homeland Security” Vol. 1: The Nation In Arms (2007) Edwin Vieira, Jr. — http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Homeland-Security-Nation-Arms/dp/0967175925

The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (2012) Edwin Vieira, Jr. CD: 2,300 pgs, 6,500 footnotes & endnotes. — http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles/dp/0967175941

Molon Labe: How the Second Amendment Guarantees America’s Freedom (2013) Produced by Edwin Vieira, Jr. and Henrietta Jaeger. Written & Directed by James Jaeger — http://molon.us/dvd

Thirteen Words (2013) Edwin Vieira, Jr. — http://www.amazon.com/Thirteen-Words-Jr-Edwin-Vieira/dp/096717595X — On the First Clause of the Second Amendment

“Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic, Vol. 1 (2013) Daniel Vincent McGonigle III — http://www.amazon.com/Execute-Restore-Republic-Nicholas-McGonigle/dp/0989670201

The Rights of the Colonists, aka The Boston Pamphlet, by Samuel Adams; The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772 – http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html — Excerpts re-printed in “Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic, from the Report published in Boston Town Records and by The Old South Meeting House.

Virginia Militia Acts, 1757 – 1785. — http://www.virginia1774.org/MilitiaActs.html

Virginia Declaration of Rights — http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union — http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Declaration; Constitution; Bill of Rights — http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language — http://1828.mshaffer.com — http://webstersdictionary1828.com

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) Joseph Story. Sec 1890 on the Second Amendment — http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

© 2014 Daniel Vincent McGonigle III"