Friday, April 15, 2016

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”


Downloadable in PDF format.

   One can logically assume that the same line of reasoning would apply against the feds, CORRECT? At least Mr. Alexander Hamilton certainly seemed to think so:
   “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an in´Čünitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.
   Believe that the words paramount to all positive forms of government most assuredly indicates that to be the case. WHY then was the treasonous federal government permitted by the courts to pass laws they were Constitutionally FORBIDDEN from enacting? Care to explain that, your honors? For the whole intended purpose of the Restrictive clause of Amendment II was to prevent all positive forms of government from disarming those that had committed one of the most highest forms of felonious crimes: TREASON. As had been done in the SAME EXACT STATE INVOLVED IN THE CASE ABOVE just prior to the Constitutional Convention. And was the direct cause for the DEMAND that Amendment II was called for to begin with.

   Is it not your Constitutionally charged DUTY, your honors, to:
   “It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
   “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
   And let's see now, what does the RESTRICTIVE clause of Amendment II say on the matter? --
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.”
   And other parts of our Constitution read:
Article IV

Section 2

   The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article V
   The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article VI
   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
   Why not return to the TRUTH as it was given by a couple of YOUR brethren from YOUR court in the 19th century? (Which was utterly disregarded by the federal government and the States by the great acts of TREASON in the 20th century.) --

US v Cruikshank, Fifth Circuit Court of the U.S., , Judge [and soon to be Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court] Woods’ Jury Charge: “This statute is the law of the land . . . Its purpose is the protection of all citizens of the United States of every class and condition, in the exercise and enjoyment of their lawful and constitutional rights. . . . Its prohibitions are directed to all persons; its penalties fall upon all offenders against its provisions of every race, condition and party. . . . and it protects alike the rights of all. It applies to all parts of our country, and its provisions extend to every State and Territory in the Union . . . The second count charges a banding together of the indicted parties with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate . . . with the purpose to hinder and prevent them in the free exercise and enjoyment of their constitutional right to bear arms . . . To band is defined to be “to associate, to unite.” Thus we read in the acts of the Apostles….”, March 14, 1874

Judge Bradley decides, in effect, that the laws and Constitution of the United States, do not protect individual citizens against aggressions and violations by individuals, of the right peaceably to assemble or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to vote . . . The Constitution of the United States and fourteenth and fifteen amendments forbid the Federal Government and the State Government to violate these great rights…”, June 30, 1874

New Orleans Republican, Re: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite in U.S. v. Cruikshank et al, “The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by States, the constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe it; the sovereignty to protect lives and property lies exclusively in the States. The fourteenth amendment prohibits States from depriving any person of certain rights . . . The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.”, March 27, 1876

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley, “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? . . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms…”, AFFIRMED, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).   

   Get this treason committed by our hired servants RECTIFIED, your honors.



 

Saturday, April 09, 2016

The first five verses of Romans Chapter 13 effectively and thoroughly refuted by the Word of God

   Here is some TRUTH that needs addressed concerning the very controversial first five verses of the 13th chapter of Romans:
    "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] anger upon him that does evil. Wherefore [you] must needs be subject, not only for anger, but also for conscience sake."--Romans 13:1-5
        The first five verses of this chapter seem to have no foundation or justification in the Old Testament. And are therefore open to severe criticism, as well as doubt as to being truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. There must have been a wrong translation of this writing of Paul. For in his first letter to the Corinthians he had stated; "You are bought with a price; be not you the servants of men."--1 Corinthians 7:23. Or, Paul was writing about religious “powers” and not civil. For the Lord Jehoshua Himself had indeed stated: "Then spoke Jehoshua to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and do not."--Matthew 23:1-3. We then have the following: "JEHOVAH has broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers. He who struck the people in anger with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hinders. The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yes, the fir trees rejoice at you, [and] the cedars of Lebanon, [saying], Since you are laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for you to meet [you] at your coming: it stirs up the dead for you, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say to you, Are you also become weak as we? are you become like to us? Your pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of your viols: the worm is spread under you, and the worms cover you. How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!"--Isaiah 14:5-12

        In fact, the Old Testament has numerous instances of the exact opposite of what Paul is reputed to have claimed in the first five verses of Romans 13. First and foremost, that God was exremely angry when the children of Israel desired a king. For God Himself had intended to be their King. [1 Samuel 8:3-22, 10:17-27, 1 Samuel 12:1-25] And not only that, but God had intended Israel to be an example to all of the peoples around them. And this in order to show His glory through them. As well as to go into the lands where there was pervasive wickedness among the other peoples and utterly destroy them. But of course Supreme God knew what the children of Israel would do beforehand, and alotted for it. [Deuteronomy 17:14-20, 28:36-52] When the children of Israel wanted to be like other countries around them. God gave them, (much to their later regret), exactly what they asked for. And the fierce anger of God is shown repeatedly afterwards towards those that disobeyed Him; both to many of their rulers and the people that followed them. All of the rest of the Word of Supreme God is in direct confliction to that which is claimed in the first five verses of this chapter of Romans. Especially when one considers the Book of Daniel chapters 3 and 6. It cannot therefore logically be contended that Supreme God would have His children subject themselves to evil rulers.

        What it really boils down to is this. Are the children of Supreme God to be obedient to a "power" that plainly acts in opposition to His Word? Hardly, for it is written in the Revelation of what becomes of those that obey the "ruler" depicted in that writing of John. They are cut off and damned eternally.

        All throughout the Word of God His children are taught to judge righteously. [Deuteronomy 16:19, 25:1, Psalms 1:5, Proverbs 18:5, Habakkuk 1:3-4] And we are commanded by the Lord Jehoshua the Anointed to exercise righteous judgment [John 7:24]. Joshua had summed it up quite clearly in Joshua 24:14-15. As well as Peter in Acts 4:19. And the Lord Jehoshua Himself makes the matter quite plain: "Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and to Supreme God the things that are Supreme God's."--Jehoshua, Matthew 22:21. We are also commanded: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."--Jehoshua, Matthew 10:16.

        The Lord Jehoshua had also stated: "Then said Jehoshua to him, Get you hence, Satan: for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your Supreme God, and him only shall you serve."--Jehoshua, Matthew 4:10. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve Supreme God and mammon."--Jehoshua, Matthew 6:24. [Also see: Luke 4:8] “What think you, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter said to him, Of strangers. Jehoshua said to him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go you to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first comes up; and when you have opened his mouth, you shall find a piece of money: that take, and give to them for me and you.”--Matthew 17:25-27. As well as: “And he said to them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But you [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve.”--Jehoshua, Luke 22:25-26.

        If what Paul is reputed to have contended were actually true. Then it follows that it would have been the will of Supreme God that His children follow after "rulers" such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Even though it is plainly written about the judgment of Supreme God concerning evil rulers: "For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD."--Psalms 149:4-9. (Keep in mind that the foregoing had been written by a king.) And: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless! And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation [which] shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand [is] stretched out still."--Isaiah 10:1-4.

        It must also be taken into consideration, that the Catholic church, (which set up kings and queens for centuries). As well as king James, both of which had many influences in the publications of the Word of Supreme God. Had very good reasons to have those that they had considered subjects under them. To be beguiled into believing that Supreme God had decreed that His followers should be subjected to the will of their fellow man. If these people were actually so much more intelligent than the masses. Then our world wouldn’t be in the situation that it is now.

        Our Supreme God does not change: Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8. We are plainly not bound to bow down our knee, obey, nor serve evil. In fact, we are commanded to directly confront evil: Matthew 3:2, 4:17, Mark 1:15, 17, 6:12, 13:3, 5, 16:15. And that we would suffer, as did His early disciples, for righteousness sake. “But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues you shall be beaten: and you shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.”--Mark 13:9. And anyone that contends differently cannot possibly be a child of Supreme God, nor a true follower of Jehoshua His Anointed.
    "Now therefore reverence JEHOVAH, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve you JEHOVAH. And if it seem evil to you to serve JEHOVAH, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve JEHOVAH."--Joshua 24:14-15
   The above is also found in the preface of The Alpha and Omega King James Modernized Version Study Bible. Which has had further additions of references and can be downloaded in PDF format:

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The right to be armed is not intended to promote violence....

   Rather, it was intended to PREVENT violence. Which is something that many seem to have confused. And this, out of cowardice, or to gain more 'power' and 'control'.

   This world, in its present condition, will not cease to have violence. This is a fact that has been proven repeatedly throughout history.

   The best we can hope for, or do, is to prepare ourselves to conform to that factual condition. And be armed in order to provide an effectual deterrent to those that are disposed to utilize violence to fulfill their own selfish ends.

   As was noted by writer Robert A. Heinlein:

   "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

   And the above applies to all aspects of society. It applies to those in our governments. As is evidenced by the fact of our hired servants in our governments being armed. Which is of course meant to enforce law by threat of force.

   But the men that framed our Constitution knew that government itself must be kept in line. They knew that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". As has been shown to be true all throughout recorded history. And, that the only effective means of keeping that power in check. Was that of having an armed populace as a ready and visible "check" on those entrusted with power. Which is of course why those in power always attempt to restrict and/or disarm their people.

   We were not only intended to be armed in order to keep those in our governments from becoming criminal. But to keep the criminals on our streets in line as well. Which of course would put a serious dent in the multi-billion dollar [supposed] 'criminal justice' system industry.

   So we then see that the love of power and money are the true reasons why those in power are unconstitutionally restricting and/or disarming We The People. And they will continue to attempt it as long as there are cowards within our population that cry out for them to do so.