There is a convinced and growing portion of the population in the united States of America today, that has been recently fueled by the stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, NV and the lack of attention brought to other government land grabs across the country. (See: Native Americans Still Being Raped Of Their Land By “White Mans Government”: The BLM Land Grab That DIDN’T Go Viral) The purpose of the original Legislative Branch of government is to represent the People (House of Representatives) and the States (two Senators originally selected by the state legislative bodies) and to protect the rights of both. Little by little, the rights of both the People and the States have been taken by an increasingly tyrannical corporate federal government. And many Americans think that it is both 'necessary and proper' that we allow it, and it is allowed by silent consent. I strongly disagree. The Founders knew that a corporate federal government (See: East India Company) will overreach its limits and begin to infringe on and control the rights of the People. The very fact that it is by the People's consent that governance exists is lost on most Americans today, as they have been indoctrinated by a public education system designed to make them believe they are obligated to a corporate structure.
Sovereignty was the province of the King and all others were Subjects. Our nation was founded on the principle of Sovereign Individuals and the bodies of government were servants to the People.
There were very specific reasons that the Constitution limited the scope of the federal government. Because the law of the land is the Constitution, all laws must conform to it, otherwise they are invalid. When an unconstitutional law is obeyed by the majority of People, it gives government power to enforce it. Common Law is the law of the land under the Constitution, and it has been replaced with the very system that helped ignite the Revolution. See references to the Organic Act of 1871 in previous posts at the end of the article.
To those who do not remember or who did not learn of it in school, it was the taking over of the law by the British and the confiscation of arms that finally riled the People into rebellion. Defending themselves was a right they were not willing to concede to authority, even when that authority possessed the mightiest naval forces in the world at that time.
There are so many laws that have been passed by all levels of government, that it seems that the moment you leave your home, you are violating some of them. Of course it only seems relevant when actions you take that are perfectly in order with natural rights, are deemed against some law or mandate and you are arrested and charged with a crime.
In the post titled, The Second Amendment: Meaning and Purpose the reason that it was included in the Constitution becomes clear. And it was clear when the Japanese were interrogated after the war, that they did not invade the US mainland because they feared a 'rifle behind every blade of grass' as the American People were well-armed. "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" It is apparent that any laws that restrict the rights of the People to keep and bear arms, and to restrict the formation of citizen militias, is a crime against the Constitution and the People. Those who wrote and passed these laws are by their actions, perpetrators of high crimes and misdemeanors. There are lawful processes for the People to take action against crimes committed by those entrusted to protect the People's rights. The Constitution provides the remedy through the grand jury method. Not the one that requires a prosecutor (DA) to initiate. But one initiated by Petition of the People. There is no constitutional grounds for the federal government to own land. The 'public land' belongs to the People. It's time for the People to defend their lands, even from their own government.
Laws that prohibit firearms do nothing to prevent nor deter crime. The facts speak for themselves, regardless of what the fear mongers preach. Disarming the People is necessary for complete control. Every tyranny passed ever more restrictive laws until outright confiscation was implemented.
With the passage of unconstitutional laws in the Constitution State, Connecticut has proven my point: confiscation is eminent and unless We the People rise up, all of our freedoms are lost.
The Esteemed Readers of Fix America are well aware of how we reached this point in America's demise. Starting with Lincoln's martial law which has never really been dismissed, and moving through to the NDRP and executive orders that can only be followed by usurpers of the Constitution, we are at that fork in the road and must choose the path we will follow. It is always easier to say, 'Que sera, sera!' And just go along. That is what the good people of Germany did as National Socialism festered in their nation. History demonstrates the results in these so-called 'revolutions' against well established governments. Our own founders described this concern in the Declaration of Independence, as they further listed the oppression and usurpation of Common Law and the restrictions placed on natural rights.
The right to keep and bear arms was assumed to be part of the natural rights, those being life, liberty and property. The fear that a government would at some point attempt to disarm the People, prior to oppressing them, it was insisted to be placed as an enumerated right which governments were forbidden to legislate against. By highlighting certain crimes in the media, the policy pushers of big and powerful government control instill fear in the public, and use that fear to press for regulations that will prohibit certain types of 'criminals' from having all of their rights. Such is the federal law that prohibits a person charged and convicted of a felony crime from ever owning a firearm. That is unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Gun control advocates will ask, "Do you want ex-cons having guns?" to which I say, "Those who want them will get them, regardless of the law." Breaking the law is why they were convicted in the first place! "But when they get caught with a gun, they get stiffer sentences." To which I say, "If the crime they committed was such that the sentence paid restitution to the victim, instead of allowing the convict to live on taxpayer resources, maybe they would not be repeat offenders!" Law needs to provide justice. Laws that create criminals from law-abiding people are not just laws. They are created by planning and planting fear in the reporting of crimes, school shootings, mall shootings, now military base shootings. If more people carried weapons there would be less of this, not more.
For many years, I never carried so much as a pocket knife and now I carry a weapon always. I respect a business's wishes when posted 'No firearms', and I find another place to spend my money and time when I do. I imagine that most of the loudest advocates for gun laws are the ones who need not have a weapon. Their display of fear and paranoia is good reason not to own or bear firearms. For the rest of us We the People will decide NOT the government! Reference Link: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/
I received this letter as a reply to my concern that Senator Merkley was in favor of restrictions on arms/magazine capacities, and demanding that he vote against any such unconstitutional infringements now and in the future. Apparently the Senator does not represent We the People of Oregon, but an ideology that he feels is more justified than the will of those he was elected to represent. "Dear Fred, Thank you for contacting me to express your views on legislation to reduce gun violence. As Oregonians, we have experienced more than enough gun violence and this issue hits close to home for many of us. And yet many Oregonians cherish their guns and want to ensure that they continue to have the right to use them safely. I appreciate knowing the thoughts of Oregonians on all sides of this complex issue. As you probably know, the Senate recently debated the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act (S.649), a bill that I have supported as a strong effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and reduce gun violence without impinging on the Second Amendment. The bill's main thrust is to close loopholes in the background check system, including the gun-show loophole. Oregon closed the gun-show loophole years ago, so this is consistent with choices we have made. I believe strongly that the most basic protection we can provide is to do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people with serious mental illnesses who may pose a threat to themselves and others. The bill also includes provisions strengthening criminal penalties for people who conduct "straw purchases" on behalf of others in order to evade background checks. During the debate of the bill, the Senate also considered amendments on a number of other provisions. I supported restrictions on large ammunition magazines, which are not needed for hunting or target shooting, but have been used in many mass shootings, and on military-style assault weapons. I also voted in favor of a bipartisan amendment to improve the mental health system and an amendment by Senator Barrasso (R-WY) to stop states from publicly disclosing personal information about people with gun permits. I recognize that Oregonians come down in very different places on some of these policy choices. I come from rural Oregon and recognize the importance of hunting, target shooting, and gun collecting in many communities. I am committed to protecting the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. As a parent and a policymaker, I also feel a strong responsibility to take meaningful action to reduce the gun deaths and injuries that plague our country and to keep kids safe. We need to do what we can to prevent the horror of Newtown and Clackamas Town Center and so many other tragedies from happening again. I believe S. 649 meets both of those priorities. Work on the bill was suspended after it became clear that it lacked the supermajority of 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. If the Senate returns to this topic, I will certainly keep your views in mind. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. All my best, Jeffrey A. Merkley United States Senator" And this is my reply to Senator Merkley:
Dear Jeffrey, It is interesting how you view the Second Amendment, with hunting, target shooting, and gun collecting as your basis for endorsing legislation that does absolutely nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but does much to infringe upon the rights of the People.
Perhaps you need to read the Constitution Jeff. Does this look familiar? "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says nothing about 'law-abiding citizens' nor mentions hunting, target shooting, or gun collecting. In fact, it does not make exceptions for 'assault weapons' or 'high capacity' magazines. So where do you get the idea that laws for registration or capacity limits protect the 'constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens'? Is that to the exclusion of constitutional rights for everyone else? In fact what it does say is that you Mr. Senator, have no damn authority to pass ANY laws that prohibit or restrict arms of any type for any reason whatsoever. Personally, if I could afford to own and maintain heavy artillery, I would do so, and it is NOT the province of government to tell me what I can and cannot own. Do you recall a fracas back in 1776 regarding government getting a bit too intrusive in the lives of the People? Justify your unconstitutional and treasonous position with somebody who sympathizes with that rhetoric, because liberty loving patriotic Americans certainly don't! In liberty, Fred Marsico American Patriot
Spinning propaganda to promote policies that have nothing to do with the issues is now the way party politics operates at all levels of government. A look at the facts will demonstrate the fallacy of what the politicians and government wants us to believe. No background checks or bans to weapons or magazines would have had any bearing on the most recent attacks on Americans. Most of these deaths were not caused by guns. In the bombings in Boston, a more vigilant policy to enforce immigrantion laws may have prevented it since it was learned that these two were interrogated by the FBI due to information provided by Russian authorities. In the case of mentally unstable individuals who commited murders with guns, knives, and even baseball bats, it seems obvious that background checks would not have helped either. Most crimes involving deaths by shooting are weapons that were obtained by the criminals in illegal transactions. New laws will not stop bad people from breaking those new laws as they do with current laws. But there is a much larger issue at the forefront of all of this. The issue most relevant is that of rights and limits. Regarding rights, there are some who feel that the government has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people if it can demonstrate it is for the good of the people or the security of the nation. The government cannot take that which it did not give. Our rights are not obtained from the government nor do we get them from the Constitution. And the Constitution only spells out some of those rights, rather concentrating on the duties and limits of the federal government, primary of which is protecting the rights and safety of the people. There are many Americans today who think that government has the duty to provide many things for the people of America. These are people who have been taught by institutionalized schools, mandated and regulated by federal government, being indoctrinated into thinking as they are told to think, what to think, and allowing authority of the government prevail. More and more examples of individualism being suppressed and even punished make the news in between this recent major distractions from the real issues of a government that is so corrupted by greed and power, that they will sooner bankrupt the nation rather than admit they can't fix the problem without cutting the spending and reining in the Federal Reserve System that is further destroying our economy. Our nation is under attack, not only from foreign extremists, but from within by a corrupted representation of the people, who cater to the whims of corporate interests to the detriment of the citizens they are supposed to protect.It is up to us, We the People, to defend our nation when our government fails. We must restore our nation ourselves!
Having recently moved into a new place, I haven't really had time to even thing about what to write. So I thought I would simply catch up on what has been happening in current events since I also purchased a new TV to go with the high speed internet service and the HD cable package.
First, Secretary of Defense nominee Charles Hagel's confirmation is not going well. And with just cause as I explained in my recent post Chuck Chuck: No Defensive Senator for Defense Secretary and with his past remarks regarding Israel, he certainly needs to be withdrawn of the nomination.
Chris Dorner certainly had his fifteen minutes of fame. Now, is he dead or alive in Mexico somewhere? Nobody's talking. A recent post that I came across on Facebook indicates that it is a fish smelling story about how his identification managed to survive the inferno that leveled the mountain cabin he allegedly was holed up in. Seems like a Hollywood screenwriter was paid handsomely for that yarn. Just another media spin at the behest of the government to make the glazed-eyed masses believe the Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America somehow needs to be exclusive of certain types of arms.
Obama's State of the Union was more a campaign thump than an indication that he is serious about getting this nation back on the right track. Global warming is not our most pressing crisis. And being upstaged by Dr. Benjamin Carson did nothing to bruise the ego of the man occupying the Oval Office. Obama seems totally detached from what needs to be done and yet his personal agenda remains against every principle of a representative republic, and a strong reflection of his blatant narcissism.
John Kerry as Secretary of State is a step to the side if not a slide backwards from Hillary Clinton. With the Benghazi attacks still unaccounted for by the State Department and the President's seeming lack of interest when the murders were taking place, does nothing to instill any sense of confidence or safety in most Americans abroad.
Oh, and fuel prices are as high as there were last summer and it's not even March!
There are a lot of people who believe more restrictions on purchasing weapons will have a positive result in stopping gun violence, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These are the most dangerous people in our society today. These are the people with tunnel vision based on their own narrow focus on reality. Most of these people hold degrees in history or law. Some may also have degrees in social services and they have been taught incorrectly, that weapons cause violence. It is just nonsense. I have been around hammers more than guns, and I know a hammer is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of someone wanting to harm someone else. A gun is just another tool, yet it was so important to the founders of the United States, to include it in the Constitution as part of the Amendments collectively named, The Bill of Rights. The gun debate stems from the Second Article of Amendment which states, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was another limitation placed on the government, explicitly stating that no laws restricting that right is lawful. Many will argue that today's social problems with drug cartels and dealers on the streets were not known to our founders or they may have made some concessions. It is arrogant and deceitful to expound on what the founder's may have done differently when it is obvious to anyone that studied the history of the American Revolution and even the Civil War, can plainly see that the resistance was against a federal government interfering with the rights of the free individuals residing in the free and sovereign States. To even claim that we have law enforcement today that was lacking in the past is absurd also. Those inclined to do a crime, will do so regardless of laws. We have absurd drug laws and yet we have drugs rampant in American cities. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and they enjoy the highest murder rate with guns as the number one weapon. Maybe if victims had guns they would have at least prevented someone else from being shot by a criminal. There is no evidence and there will be none that demonstrates any correlation between tough gun laws and lower rates of crime. How can there be any, when the opposite is true? Global statistics reveal that where there is little or no restrictions on citizens owning weapons, there is reduced violent crime.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Tell your Congress that!
It began with the words, “We the People” in very large type, indicating the it is by the People’s consent that they be governed according to the Constitution for the united States of America. Clearly a statement that puts those who will be chosen to represent the People, to follow the laws of the Constitution when making any other laws regarding the whole of the sovereign individuals, making up the People of the States.
Both the authority and limits placed on the national government were meant to restrain it from passing laws that would jeopardize the rights of the People in any manner.
One of those rights that was explicitly defined in the Constitution was to protect the religious freedom of all People.
The 1st Article of Amendment clearly states that,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And one of the most important amendments, the 2nd Article of Amendment, makes it emphatically clear,
“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.”
During the time of its writing, “well regulated” was to mean well trained. “Necessary to the security of a free State.” Simply it means it is a State’s right to form its own army to protect itself of attacks from enemies. Granted that the Constitution also states, the President as Commander-in-Chief may call up the Militia, the Governors of each Sovereign States must call up the Militia for their particular State before the President can assume the Commander-in-Chief authority over them. That would make sense if the President was to call forth the Army by declaring war on a State because it was threatening the union through conflicts with either, other States or the Union itself.
That part about “keep and bear arms,” itself is an explicit limit placed on the national government, as it was feared by our founders that a government that became corrupted and tyrannical can only be stopped with parity in weapons of war. It was never implied that hunting and target shooting was ever considered as a thought in this amendment. And the part that states, “shall not be infringed” is also protection from limitations placed on an individual’s type of weapon or inventory of ordinance.
Even the fact that guns must be registered or that permits must be issued is an infringement. It allows a possible tyranny to overwhelm the public with superior arms with less fear of reciprocal casualties. In other words, they can kill you without fear of significant reprisals as they would easy defeat an ill equipped rebellion.
This short lesson in Constitution is brought to you by the many who have fought for and who gave their lives fighting for the liberties that some take for granted. It protects my rights to free speech and to present alternative views from those of the privately-owned and government-controlled major media. And then there are others who are willing to give up freedom for some illusion of security, when bombarded with constant images of deaths in which guns were used. They soon forget that they have the right and the duty to defend themselves, and not reliance on government to protect their persons which cannot be done.
Every dictator throughout history slaughtered their own countrymen after passing laws that prohibited the People from keeping and bearing arms. The only difference here in the US is that they are doing it gradually with propaganda campaigns like Germany did during the Nazi years.
Once we give up our ability to arm and defend ourselves we will become full slaves or murdered. It’s the same story repeated over and over, so what makes you think it will have any different result this time?
Ever since the first federal laws prohibited convicted felons from owning firearms was written, the federal and state laws concerning guns proliferated. Now we are facing outright bans on certain types of arms and not only by our own government, but also from the international body of the United Nations. I for one find the laws are all unconstitutional and therefore null and void. The Constitution is explicit. The Second Amendment as it is written 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.
It does not make any provisions for government to infringe on the rights of the People based on their social standing, criminal history, or the types of weapons they may possess. It was meant as a protection of the people from a tyrannical government or other enemies of the people. Now the first part of the amendment has been taken to mean a state's guardsmen, which is in fact incorrect. Militias were local citizens who banded together to form their own protective guards. It does allow for the governors of states to call up the militias of the various communities and to assign or conscript them to serve under the President as Commander-in-Chief during times of war. Later laws such as the War Powers Act, shredded the explicit limitations placed on both the State and the Federal governments by the Constitution by allowing standing armies during peacetime and by virtually eliminating the militias by the creation of the National Guards, a federally mandated army under the authority of the State Governor but in actual practice the President of the United States. Any law that limits the organization of citizen armies (militias) or limits the right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is by virtue of the Constitution, null and void. It is not the government that needs to protect these rights when it it clear that the government is disobeying the limits place upon it by the People.
There is a belief in America today that our government is taking rights away from the people. Each day we hear and read about how government passes laws that chip away constitutional rights or how the President writes executive orders that by-pass Congress and the judicial review process entirely to make laws as a dictator. But the problem lies with the people and not the government. Yes, that's right, you are the reason that it is happening. In all that is happening, the blame lies with the American People and not the American Government. We all know the history we learned in school about Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and even Castro in Cuba. What you don't learn in school is that all of them were financed by the wealthy bankers and industrialists, all of whom profited through the imprisonment and murder of innocent citizens who willingly gave up rights for the illusion of security.
We are bombarded by the privately-owned and government controlled major media to believe that America's lax gun control is responsible for the shooting in schools and movie theaters. That the drive-by shootings in drug-infested sections of metropolitan areas will somehow cease if weapons are banned. Even Hollywood celebrities come out clamoring for stricter gun laws or the outright ban of weapons by private individuals. The problem is not the celebrities or the media, or even the government that produces this propaganda to frighten the masses into submission to loss of rights with the illusory promise of security. In most nations around the globe, those with the strictest gun laws are the ones that have the highest rates of crime. By contrast, the nations with the most armed citizens are those with the lowest crime rates. But you don't even have to look beyond our own borders to see the absurdity in the media reports. While shooting like those in Sandy Hook grab the attention of the media, the stories of crimes being prevented or thwarted by armed citizens go unnoticed and unreported.
Every other alternative news story I read claims that are Second Amendment is under attack and that we stand to lose it entirely due to treaties being negotiated and signed by our President. If you really bothered to read our Constitution and truly understand its meaning, then it will become obvious to you that the President nor Congress has the authority to do anything beyond what the Constitution permits. The infringements made against us by our government is treason. So when will you all begin to come to terms with the fact that it is by allowing it to happen that it does? When will you choose to stand up and fight for your nation in the face of a government that has been taken over and is being destroyed by true un-American activities? Huh? When?
If you have ever been arrested on drug charges and have had to endure incarceration for it, this story will certainly thrill you. The British giant banking firm, HSBC, was slapped on the wrist this week by the United States Department of Justice and while they violated several laws (the Bank Secrecy Act and the Trading With The Enemy Act) no criminal charges will be filed. Instead Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the longtime buddy of none other than former President William Jefferson Clinton has chosen to settle with the banks for $1.9 billion dollars, despite the fact that HSBC makes more than that in less than a week of banking. While admitting they have laundered billions for both Colombian and Mexican drug cartels and others, the USDOJ will prosecute possession of drugs (don't get caught with a pot seed!) to the fullest extent of the law, while allowing the real pushers to get away with crimes.
This is evidence that there is no real war on drugs, only a war on individuals who choose to exercise their own choice to use drugs. While in many cases, the choice is a poor one, you cannot deny the fact that prosecution is selective. The fine of $1.9 billion dollars may seem like a lot, but when you consider the hundreds of billions this one dirty bank makes annually, it is merely a few pennies from a cookie jar in comparison. Believe what you will, but this is another outrage from a DOJ that wants to take your Second Amendment rights while sending arms to drug lords and terrorists. Where is the outrage from the American People? Where is the media coverage of the blatant disregard for the rule of law? Where is the rebellion? Read full story here.
We all know the often repeated phrase, "Freedom is not free" yet we ignore the reality of the price we must pay to sustain it. If you are not willing to defend your freedom with your life, you really do not deserve to have it.
I have been writing the Fix America blog since 2008. In that time I have covered many subjects that I felt were relevant to a majority of Americans. I have leaned heavily on the principles of liberty as a birthright as opposed to something that is granted by government. In fact, the very nature of our liberty is dependent on those willing to sacrifice all on order to have it.
The foundations for American liberty can be found in the words of Thomas Jefferson, specifically in the Declaration of Independence. In that superbly written document we read,
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with' certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.- That to secure these Rights, 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 then stands to reason that the government itself is created through the consent of We the People, and its purpose is to protect the rights of all sovereign individuals. At some point in the history of this once great nation, people began to take freedom for granted and the government began taking freedom from them.
The document itself is rebellious. It is the very essence of what Americans are in a sense, a revolutionary force in the world, that does not subscribe to the subjection to laws and regulations that inhibit the freedoms we hold so precious. And to protect those freedoms we must be rebellious at all times to anyone and anything that will attempt to deny us those rights.
In her book, Give Me Liberty, Naomi Wolf challenges the reader with these very same principles, to revolt, to rebel, and to be ever vigilant of those who seek to control you. It is portrayed as "A handbook for American Revolutionaries" and rightly so.
In the present times, the very government that our founders created now view those same founders as extremists and insurgents, and that is exactly how we all must be to keep our freedoms and stop the tyranny of a government out of control. It is why the government wants gun bans, and laws that prohibit free speech. It is why we have unconstitutional laws such as the (un)Patriot(otic) Act and NDAA. If our founders were alive today, I am certain they would be gathering militias to storm the halls of the nation's capital and remove those guilty of high crimes and treason. But they are no longer with us and we must take up the challenge ourselves.
Blessings and prayers to those lost and those who mourn. I was going to write a short post about the end of the world, just as I did many years ago with the Y2K disaster predictions, but now that I seem to be getting all of these emails and posts ob Facebook regarding the shootings that killed so many children and adults in Connecticut last week, it seems that I must address this issue from my own unique perspective. It is always a tragedy when human life is lost seemingly without any sense at all. Whether it be a lone gunman or a suicide bomber, the death and destruction remains senseless. The knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook was the push for banning guns. An obvious rebuttal to that is this: Had teachers in that school had been trained and armed, the tragedy would have been lessened if not avoided. Blaming guns on the senseless murders is no different than blaming pencils for failing tests. Most people don't see the analogy as more tongue-in-cheek quip, but it is nonetheless an accurate assessment. Some insisted on having so-called assault weapons banned, since there was no 'use for them' for hunting, and the very nature of these weapons were designed for combat. That being so, it is still in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The right to own and bear arms was not limited to flintlocks and muskets. The very purpose of that right was to arm the citizens and protect them through the right to form militias against any aggression from forces including a tyrannic government. The very purpose of the Constitution itself was to limit the government, not the People. In the course of American history however, many laws have been enacted that were to benefit the people although they also violated constitutional limits and individual rights. Even today many feel that it is a necessary evil because they have become dependent of a government that gives them benefits at the cost of their own liberties and the burden of taxes on others. Most liberals call it paying their fair share, which as wards of the state, they themselves pay nothing. The world did not end as many thought it would, based on the incorrect interpretations of a perpetual Mayan calendar. So now we all must go forward and face the realities of a world that is systematically becoming a totalitarian global corporate state, where rights are replaced with privileges and liberty is nothing more than a dream of patriots.
It is predictions and prophecy that guides many. It seems that when you believe so strongly in something, that it will occur. Many people believe in the End Times, and they have pretty most the same idea of what that is supposed to look like. I see a possibility of an alternative outcome. But it will take a great amount of people who are willing to look beyond the doom and gloom prophets many people now follow. I see the possibility that people all over the world will begin to awaken. For so long, the world has been fighting a spiritual tug-of-war as different religions claim exclusive dominion over the souls of humanity. Followers of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses all believe their way is the only way to salvation. But what if they are all wrong? It is quite arrogant for people to cling to beliefs that put the Earth at the center of the Universe. At some point in the past there lacked a basic knowledge of the cosmos and the Earth was even considered to be flat, and punishment of death do those that dared to think otherwise. As a nation, we face the most important election in our history. The United States was founded on fundamental principles that stated our rights our derived from our Creator, in whatever form that may be to you as an individual. It doesn't matter what God or religion you believe in. As far as individual rights are concerned in the context of a government, our Constitution makes it your right to choose. But keep in mind, others have that same right also. And most important is the fact that because both you and they share the same rights, you don't have to share the same beliefs and opinions, nor can you force your beliefs and opinions on others. That is a clear violation of their God-given rights. But throughout history, there are always those who feel that "they" know what is best for others. Whether it be a church or an entire religion, whether it be the local, state or federal government, there are always those who think their way is best for the community or for society. I feel there are some basic rights that get infringed upon when one special interest group tries to force their beliefs on everyone. Which brings us back to why the world must and will change. It is a matter of choice. Some choose to back a group thought process and tell us that they are "free thinkers" and that they just happen to agree with most of the group. If the group is of a special interest, then that it to the exclusion of all others who are not in that particular group or who just don't agree with their opinions. This nation as an example to the rest of the world, was to allow everyone group to live as they feel best for themselves but without interfering with everyone else. But that was also against the wishes of those groups who wished to control all the groups, and who wanted to homogenize society into a group of obedient workers and managers. They assumed the roles of executive officers and with privileges that denied the majority their basic God-given rights. Bans on anything the government wants to control is against basic human rights. Allowing one group special privileges over all others is an infringement on the rights of others. Often I hear or read about people who feel that they have been wronged by others who have not allowed basic rights. The simple solution is to allow them rights but not to grant special privileges to them. The world is in crisis. Economies are toppling the world over. Political and religious conflicts occur daily, with humans murdering humans simply because they differ in thinking. It is all a manipulation and it is made easy because most people deny that it exists. People refuse to believe that their government would harm them. Especially when their government is formed under their beliefs in God. Somehow they equate the religious leaders as being all knowing and always right about what God wants from you. Did you ever bother just asking God? Do you really think that any other human has a more direct communication with God than you or I? Doesn't it seem rather arrogant to think that if God wanted to tell the world something, that it would be through one religion as opposed to all others? There is religious war being waged today. It is being waged on many fronts as Islam and Christianity clash and Judaism it caught in the middle. But more important to the idea of God-given rights, it the ideological and philosophical war being fought. That the two are intertwined is obvious. Each religion has its own set rules, or prohibitions. And the forcing of those prohibitions as laws of government directly infringe on the God-given rights of all others, who are of a different faith than the current majority or the loudest protester. As we are less than a week away from the 2012 Presidential Election, it appears that there are lines being drawn to differentiate between the two most prominent candidates in the media. Yet there are so parallels between these two, I find it less than amusing that the major likenesses are most ignored. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are for big government and tight control over the citizens. Individual rights mean nothing to either of them although they each pay lip service to it, and defend the denial and suspension of rights when the illusion of security is at risk. Make no mistake; there is no difference when it comes to enforcing laws like the Patriot Act or National Defense Authorization Act. Both agree that if they feel it necessary, an Executive Order can be written that will by-pass the normal channels of legislation to do whatever it is they want to do. While on the surface they seem so far apart on many issues that are relevant, they both support the same methods that got us in this mess, whether it is taxes and regulation, or defining a class of people to single out as being good or bad for the nation.
Is it too late to convince registered voters of both major parties to abandon the party and vote for a different candidate? How about a Libertarian? How about Gary Johnson?
“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney
“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney
“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center
WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote: “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”
“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
— Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president
Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there. Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.
Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.
Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]
December 7, 2011: Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.
In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]
Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …
The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]
Mitt Romney Platform:
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?
Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:
1994: "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."
2011: "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002: "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."
2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."
Mitt Romney on Health Care:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."
Platform 2012?
Abortion: pro-life
Capital punishment: against
Censorship: against the Fairness Doctrine
Child protection: "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."
Education: supports No Child Left Behind
Abstinence education: supports this in public schools
Prayer in schools: He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said, "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.
Environment\Global warming: Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.
Family life: Mitt Romney has said, "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."
Gun control: Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
Health Care: supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."
Medical Marijuana: Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."
Stem Cell Research: Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.
Free Trade: Supports
Minimum Wage: Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?
Taxation: Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes; advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.
Immigration: Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.
Iran: Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.
Iraq War: Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.
Pakistan: Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."
What... if anything does the previous information actually mean? You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.
Back in January 2009, I posted a video about gun laws in great Britain. I was thinking how backwards society in general has become, believing the propaganda of pacifists and the privately-owned majority media that guns kill people and the less guns in the world, the safer the world will be.
This is all based on lies. Every dictator, every totalitarian government have taken weapons from its citizens and then proceeded to murder them. When a government wants to quell any descent from the civilian population, the weapons are confiscated first. Without any defense, they will comply with anything the government wishes or they will be eliminated. Bullets are cheaper than cells or internment camps.
There are many articles regarding the UN Arms Trade Treaty both supporting and condemning it. Some claim that it is merely an international registry and that it would provide benefit to have a registration for a weapon in case it may be used in the commission of a crime.
Many Americans feel that it is an invasion of privacy and a blatant invasion of their rights as explicitly stated in the Constitution. I tend to side with the latter.
The right to bear arms and to form militias within the communities was the civil law enforcement the founders envisioned. This provides for the various needs of the people considering their location and environment. Obviously law enforcement boats would not be required in the Rockies, nor would snowmobiles be relevant in the coastal areas. The calling up of the militias in times of declared war was another issue that did in no war restrict the citizens from having personal weapons. There purposefully were no restrictions placed on weapons as the needs of the individual is of greatest concern for safety.
I felt it was necessary to bring this blog post forward and update it, with the motivation of stimulating debate and discussion on the issue by readers.
