What I Learned Today: Or Elected Servants Think They Are Masters

UPDATE! 

See below!
I was unable to sleep after attending a meeting of the Corvallis City Council. Something was bothering me and I could not fall asleep. And then it hit me!

I listened to a small group of people who had very little or no direct contact with arms tell the Mayor and City Council why they needed to pass an unconstitutional ordinance to prohibit the open carrying of loaded arms within the city limits. All kinds of figures and percentages about gun violence were offered as testimony, while opposition spoke of rights and Constitution, and lawsuits if this ordinance passes a council vote.

So I finally decided that I would take my allocated three minutes to speak. I am sure that I didn't make many friends on the Corvallis City Council. I told them that what they were proposing was a violation of my rights and that I would not obey such a law, in fact, there would be people from all over Oregon who will come and open carry in defiance of this ordinance. I said that the Constitution is not the source of my rights rather it is the duties and responsibilities and limitations placed on the federal government as well as that of the States. It explicitly states that, "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." The Bill of Rights limits all levels of government not just the federal government. The People's rights are paramount.

But it wasn't until the early hours of the morning that it finally became clear. Here were a group of people who were elected by a majority of the people of Corvallis to serve their best interests, who were willing to break the law (Constitution) to pass a law (ordinance) to please a small group of "concerned" citizens who claim that seeing people carry loaded weapons made them afraid and added undo stress in their lives.

Imagine that! City Council thought that fear and stress were adequate justification to infringe on the rights of the majority to appease a special interest minority. I reminded them about a little skirmish that occurred with the British Crown when they came to confiscate weapons from the colonists. 

Today is Election Day and I urge the Esteemed Readers to go out and vote. Go out and vote for the people who will protect your rights and not cater to special interests by taking from you what is rightfully yours. 

If We the People stand up and rescind out consent of the form of governance that has evolved from that which was created, we can restore the system to what it was once meant to be.

UPDATE:

The Corvallis City Council has decided to drop the open carry ban ordinance. It seems that the State is taking up some new gun control legislation and focus on that is required at this time.

Actually it is time that we put these public servants into their proper place. The rights of the People MUST be protected by the servants in government, not usurped because of social pressures. Freedom loving Americans must unite in common defense of our rights and freedoms.

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"

My Reply to Senator Merkley

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

Hook, Line, and Sinker - Part 1

As an afterthought to False Flag Operations being carried out by the Federal Government, it is on-going and shows no signs of stopping or letting up. Following the staged;  Waco Event on February 28, 1993, Oklahoma City Bombing Event on April 19, 1995, and the World Trade Center Event on September 11, 2001, and the Sandy Hook School Massacre Event On December 14, 2012, and the Boston Marathon Bombing Event on April 15, 2013, we can only expect more of the same in order to instill fear, instability, and insecurity in the minds of the people of this country.

Like other False Flag Operations, the Sandy Hook School Massacre Event has yet to be resolved to any degree of certainty regarding exactly what happened. All the available information indicates some type of State and Federal Active Shooter Training Exercise. Hundreds of unanswered important questions have been followed by denied FOIA requests which all point to another False Flag Operation carried out by Federal and State Authorities. This FFO was used as an example of why guns should be made illegal and confiscated. 

What can be stated as fact is straight forward.

A Federal 'Active Shooter Training Event' occurred on the same day at the same time in the local area.

Over 1,200 Law Enforcement Officers responded to the Sandy Hook School Massacre event.

First Responders and Police officers violated State regulations, crime scene protocols and procedures, and dozens of state laws. 

It was reported that an Assault Rifle was the only weapon responsible for the deaths. Then two hand guns were supposedly retrieved from the crime scene, then it was reported that there were four hand guns.

No assault rife was found in the trunk of Mrs. Lanza's vehicle. What was found was an un-fired shotgun.

No blood was seen by anyone, anywhere.

No children were processed through any triage area.

No bodies or body bags were transported anywhere at any time. No bodies were seen.

Miss Emily Parker (one of the supposedly deceased Sandy Hook School students) does not appear in any Sandy Hook School class photograph.

Parents of the supposed victims of gun violence were denied positive identification of alleged dead children.

All burials were closed casket to all persons.

The day after the alleged killing of his daughter, Emily Parker, Mr. Robbie Parker gave a press interview which reveals very bad acting at best.

All Information regarding autopsies, death certificates is not available to anyone because it has been sealed under court order by state law.

Name changes and relocation of families were provided by federal funds (your tax dollars at work). They were also provided with shares of $17 million raised through internet donation sites.

Mr. Robbie Parker was setting up an internet donation site before and during the time of his daughter's alleged murder. He opened the account on the day before the Sandy Hook School Massacre Event.

Miss Emily Parker was photographed sitting on the lap of the person occupying the White House, after her supposed death and closed casket burial.

The Sandy Hook School has been razed and the rubble removed by an unnamed company to an unknown location.

Thousands of unanswered questions are all that remain.

Video Links:

http://www.federaljack.com/school-safety-expert-threatened-for-questioning-sandy-hook/

http://www.federaljack.com/ct-cop-on-sandy-hook-inconsistencies-things-dont-add-up/

http://www.federaljack.com/the-sandy-hook-shooting-fully-exposed/

Health, Wealth, Laws, and Rights

With all of the hype in the media lately regarding abortions, guns, health care, and immigration, Americans as a whole are being duped by the people we trusted to protect our rights and our borders.

First, abortion is not a choice. Having sex is a choice and doing so with responsibility is what needs to be taught and not legislated. As a teenager, my parents spoke with me at length about sex and how it will be my responsibility to take care of a child that I father. Neighbors with daughters also taught them that having sex was not just about feeling good, as it is a reproductive process that will produce a child. Abortion was never considered as an option to carelessness and disregard for the sex act itself.

Second, regarding all of the media propaganda and the power grab by government to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, it is the duty and the right of We the People to oppose this tyranny. It is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment. It was written to insure that a government duly elected as representatives of the citizens, could not use force in order to take our rights from us. The safety of our persons and of our family is not the responsibility of government; it is our responsibility to protect our person and property. Law enforcement was never meant to replace personal responsibility rather it was to enhance it.

Contrary to popular social ideology, health care is not a human right or a right of an American citizen. Medicine as it is practiced today is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, and it does nothing to further cures or to maintain good health. Sure, diet and exercise are both stressed as important factors in health care today, but it is drugs that are relied upon to accommodate those with unhealthy lifestyles. And now with the unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the decisions regarding your own health are being handled through government bureaucrats who will decide whether or not you are worth the treatments you require. In other words, even your doctor has little to say in regards to your personal health.

Finally, we are now faced with proposed new legislation to make it easy for immigrants to gain legal status and a path toward citizenship, even though they have been breaking the laws of immigration for many years. While I am writing this, I am also listening to the President speaking about this issue. He wants to make new laws when he and his administration has refused to enforce the laws already there. He wants us Americans to believe that we will benefit from immigration laws being changed.

Obama wants to punish businesses that take advantage of illegal workers by having them work long hours and with less that minimum wage pay. Most of these workers are supposedly doing labor that Americans will not perform for these low wages. But if these businesses were able to afford to hire American workers at living wages, don’t you think more Americans would take those jobs? Perhaps the underlying problem is the value of our money and not greedy employers. It’s greed of the banking cartel  that must be addressed, and by We the People not just by the politicians we elected to protect us from them. 

When my ancestors arrived here from Europe, they did not receive benefits. They worked and saved, educated their children to strive for a better life here. Many succeeded in businesses and professional careers, paid their taxes and contributed to charity to benefit their community. They did not have any government programs that entitled them to benefits from taxpayers. They themselves were taxpayers. And whatever laws on immigration and naturalization there were at the time were obeyed and eventually they became citizens. Why do we need to change a system that worked so well? What is needed is enforcement of the laws currently in place.

There is always the cry for being humanitarian and allow these illegal immigrants to stay here. But look at other nations around the world and you will see that we are the most lenient on the planet when it comes to illegal immigration. We cannot continue to subsidize those who break our laws and reform the laws so that they will go unpunished for their crimes.

Gun Law Illusion of Security

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 We The People

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 1^st 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?