Saturday, December 31, 2005

Oh yeah, that's how I wanted to start the New Year.....

Well, apparently Hitlery has 'officially' announced her 'intent' to run for President in 2008. Oh joy!

Is it just me, or isn't there a remarkable resemblance? If not in physical features, than certainly in other areas. Look at her eyes, (don't look INTO them - or you may fall under the spell!). "The eyes are the window to the soul."
I wonder what other 'intentions' she has?
Judging from the following comment, she made on June 28, 2004;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
We can probably have a good idea as to what her intentions are!
And, if that one isn't good enough for you. The following comment from her husband shows that she is just trying to carry on a family tradition;
"The United States can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
Hitlery's husband Bill was the one that gave the 'go ahead' for the storming, and resultant massacre of the men, women and children at Waco!
This woman, for lack of a better word, must NOT be allowed into higher office!
Hillary Clinton is a direct and present danger to Liberty!

Well, now isn't THIS special......

History has a way of repeating itself....
The following is an excerpt from:
British authorities, much like Charles II and James II a century before, moved to disarm the colonists as hostilities mounted in 1774. Britain banned the export of arms and ammunition to any of the colonies and ordered General Gage to consider how to disarm residents of rebellious areas. At least in Massachusetts, some disarmament occurred, and in the "Powder Alarm" of September 1, 1774, British soldiers seized ammunition belonging to the colonial militia. These actions stiffened resistance throughout the colonies and led the colonists to form independent local militias with broad membership, the "Minutemen." Gage's attempts in late 1774 and early 1775 to seize these groups' arms across Massachusetts provoked confrontations with large forces of armed colonists, and the Revolution was famously ignited by his efforts to do so at Concord and Lexington in April 1775. Virginia Governor Dunmore's raid on an ammunitions store in Williamsburg soon thereafter prompted a similar response, as militiamen surrounded his home. British authorities' continuing efforts to disarm colonists were among the actions that the Continental Congress cited when, in July 1775, it declared the colonies' reasons for taking up arms.
And here we go again? You politicians had better start paying attention to your history books. You, I and others all know that what you are trying to accomplish is illegal, immoral and UNCONSTITUTIONAL! S.C.O.T.U.S. had better ACT and SOON!
Do you really think you are going to win?

The REAL Contest...

The New Year will bring about a new contest between the Republicans and the democrats. Each vying to assume more control and power. Each will say and do things to garner 'support' for their respective agendas and platforms. Lost in their chase, as always, will be the upholding of their Constitutionally Sworn Duties. And, perhaps equally important, if not even more so THE TRUTH.
ALL of them will leave off from doing their REAL function - ensuring the Protection and Support of OUR U.S. Constitution and WE, The People. Which is somewhat puzzling. For, are WE not their bosses? Do WE not pay their salaries? Yet OUR welfare and that of OUR Constitution, can be so easily cast aside for their lust for MORE POWER and Control.
It would behoove us to carefully consider the choices available. An option that has become a convincing argument,
is to vote EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE of them OUT of OFFICE. And start off with new ones whom will do their Constitutionally Sworn duties. And return to Promoting The General Welfare. As well as watching out for ANY potential EROSION of THE PEOPLES RIGHTS.
This new year may very well be the deciding year -
between Freedom and Tyranny!
The CHOICE of either one is up to US!

Thursday, December 29, 2005


If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed.

(And there we have it. This is the exact dilemma we find ourselves in today. The states are usurping against the RIGHTS of their Citizens through passage of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. And are disarming their populations or regulating them far beyond the limits imposed upon them. The Federal branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, whom were supposed to be Safe-Guards against such usurpations - are FAILING to ACT against them. Thus not fulfilling their CONSTITUTIONALLY SWORN Duty! Which, in the least could be called Dereliction of Duty and at most, TREASON!)
- James Madison, Federalist #44

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Do I have to SPELL it OUT for you? Okay, here goes.....

2nd Amendment - DEFINED;
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.
You know how sometimes you just have to spell things out for people? No matter how you try, they just don't get it? Well, that evidently seems to be the problem with the Second Amendment to The Bill of Rights, attached to our U.S. Constitution. So, I thought, why don't we make it easy on every one? Consult the dictionary! It will be spelled crystal clear what the ACTUAL MEANING is. Very interesting experiment. Wait until you see the results. There can now be NO DOUBT as to the ACTUAL MEANING and INTENT;
  • A = Used before terms, such as few or many, that denote number, amount, quantity, or degree
  • well = Skillfully or proficiently
  • regulated =
  • 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
  • 2. To put or maintain in order.
  • militia =
  • 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
  • 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
  • 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
  • being = To seem to consist or be made of
  • necessary =
  • 1. Absolutely essential.
  • 2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite.
  • 3. Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; Logically inevitable
  • 4. Required by obligation, compulsion, or convention.
  • to =
  • 1. In a direction toward so as to reach.
  • 2. Reaching as far as.
  • 3. To the extent or degree of.
  • 4. With the resultant condition of.
  • 5. Toward a given state.
  • the =
  • 1. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent.
  • 2. Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor.
  • security =
  • 1. Freedom from risk or danger; safety.
  • 2. Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.
  • of =
  • 1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from.
  • 2. Caused by; resulting from.
  • a = Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing: a region; a person.
  • free =
  • 1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
  • 2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another.
  • state =
  • 1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances.
  • 2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development.
  • 3. A mental or emotional condition.
  • 4. A condition of excitement or distress.
  • 5. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure.
  • 6. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
  • 7. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation.
  • the =
  • 1. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent.
  • right =
  • 1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
  • 2. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
  • of = 1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from.
  • the = 1. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent.
  • people = Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers.
  • to =
  • 1. In a direction toward so as to reach.
  • 2. Reaching as far as.
  • 3. To the extent or degree of.
  • 4. With the resultant condition of.
  • 5. Toward a given state.
  • keep =
  • 1. To retain possession of.
  • 2. To have as a supply.
  • 3. To maintain for use or service.
  • 4. To manage, tend, or have charge of.
  • 5. To cause to continue in a state, condition, or course of action.
  • 6. To save; reserve.
  • 7. To adhere or conform to.
  • 8. To remain in a state or condition.
  • and = Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.
  • bear =
  • 1. To hold up; support.
  • 2. To carry from one place to another.
  • 3. To be accountable for; assume.
  • 4. To exert pressure, force, or influence.
  • 5. To advance in a threatening manner.
  • 6. To apply maximum effort and concentration.
  • arms = A weapon, especially a firearm.
  • shall =
  • 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
  • a. Something that will take place or exist in the future.
  • b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation.
  • c. The will to do something or have something take place.
  • 2. Archaic.
  • a. To be able to.
  • b. To have to; must.
  • not = In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition
  • be =
  • 1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality.
  • 2. To occupy a specified position.
  • 3. To take place; occur
  • 4. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested.
  • infringed = to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

It is evident that there are many different meanings/definitions for most of the words, used by the Framers, when they wrote the Amendment. Of particular interest, is that, no matter which different meaning or definition is used - they all spell out the same OVERALL meaning. Done by DESIGN perhaps? For, after all, it is crystal clear that our Founders were NOT dummies! As ANYONE should plainly be able to see, the Second Amendment MEANS EXACTLY what was written. And CANNOT be disputed!


A RIGHT is a FACT in which there should be
For RIGHTS, by the TRUE implication of the word,

Okay, well here's THE PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY!

Foreign Entanglements
"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people."
- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823
It cannot be said that our Founders did not warn us about this. And yet, obviously, our government has REFUSED to heed the advice. Or follow OUR LAWS, for that matter.
(Not like that is something new, in and of itself!)
It occurs to me, that it is hypocritical for us to go charging-off to be of assistance to others. When our OWN house is not in order! In the last hundred years alone, Thousands of our fellow citizens have died because of the repeated flagrant disregard shown by our 'supposed' representatives!
Our politicians learn perverse policies from the associations made in these foreign entanglements and then turn and try to apply 'their' perversions of proper government on to US!
Have not OUR RIGHTS been increasingly eroding? Take an honest look at the United States and tell me - am I wrong?
All one has to do is take an honest appraisal of the results on our country, after any involvement in 'Foreign Entanglements'. First, there is usually a marked increase in material benefit. Followed, invariably by a moral decline in the fabric of our society.
We are in dire need of returning to our
Founding Principles - before it's to late!
I, for one, don't think we need a 'New World Order'!
Let 'them' do what 'they' want - so long as it
doesn't INVOLVE U.S.!
Has not our Country become much like the one which caused our Founders to revolt?

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

By FAR the most EFFECTIVE weapon....

Truth, is by far the MOST EFFECTIVE weapon in ANY arsenal! There is an UNLIMITED supply of ammunition for it. And it can be deadly accurate.
Which would explain why there are continual attempts at banning it!

Monday, December 26, 2005

A letter to the editor....

By clicking on the title of this post, you will be led to another episode of the 'Rabid' Liberal Zone
What follows below is my response to the editor, concerning an article in the Washington Post;
I have trouble understanding why a newspaper, located in our nations capitol, would allow an article that calls for subversion of the U.S. Constitution? Is that standard practice these days? There can be no logical explanation for calling for further governmental usurpation against our God given and Constitutionally protected Rights!
Especially in consideration of the reason WHY, the Framers of the Constitution, placed those provisions. Which FACTS are backed by INNUMERABLE quotations, by the Framers;

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
...cited from Thomas Jefferson, COMMON PLACE BOOK 314
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.
- Alexander Hamilton,
The Federalist (#28)

As well as more contemporary commentaries reaffirming this RIGHT;
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
The 1982 United States Senate subcommittee on the Constitution report.
chaired by Orrin G. Hatch
With the following providing an IDEAL Reasoning as to why we have this Right;
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist; They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist; They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew; Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.
German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
'They' were the Nazi's - who established 'Gun Control' in 1938
What is truly ludicris, is if YOU take into consideration the HORRIBLE conditions in Washington, D.C.! That you would have the gall to try and lure the rest of the country into the HELL that you people have created. A HELL of your OWN making, is sinister! It is my regret that you could not be charged with TREASON for spreading such drivel!
E. David Quammen

Now this is interesting....

....This politician discovers in the Constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to monarchy; that is equally sure it will end in aristocracy.
(Hate to break it to you Mr. Madison, but that politician just may have been correct in his assumption!)
And here it is FOLKS, THE PROBLEM which was feared to occur, HAS occurred...
With another class of adversaries to the Constitution the language is that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are intermixed in such a manner as to contradict all the ideas of regular government and all the requisite precautions in favor of liberty. Whilst this objection circulates in vague and general expressions, there are but a few who lend their sanction to it.
(Well, Mr. Madison, they are no longer so 'vague' or 'general'. It IS PRECISELY what is happening in our Country THIS DAY! All the aforementioned 'deparments' have enjoined themselves together and are perverting and subverting OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights!)
- James Madison, Federalist #38

A day late and a few TRILLION dollars short....

"[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market."
- Thomas Jefferson,
(letter to Judge William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
Yeah, well Tom - you should have told us....
....never mind!

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Let us NEVER forget.....

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a
Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.
German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
'They' were the Nazi's - who established 'Gun Control' in 1938
The above historical occurences, spells out with PERFECT CLARITY,

Saturday, December 24, 2005


Celebrating The True Meaning of Christ's-Mass...
(Image courtesy
...For HE is The Greatest 'Gift' EVER given!

Friday, December 23, 2005

Well, well - What have we here?.....

By Alexander Hamilton
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 usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely 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 defense.
THE CITIZENS must rush tumultuously to ARMS,
(Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!)
without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
(Not if they have ALREADY been ILLEGALLY DISARMED by their USURPERS, Mr. Hamilton!)
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate.
Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.
The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate.
If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.
How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people,
they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community.
They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

Where, Oh where, can they be....

The sheep are readily apparent and are spread all across the country-side. The sheep-dogs are as apparent as the sheep, however the sheep-dogs are readily led astray from their duty by ANY that offers them a better meal. The wolves are in abundance and it is plain, as to their intentions upon the sheep.
It is dismaying, to behold the lack of loyalty on the part of the sheep-dogs. And, equally so, in observing the gathering of the ravening wolves.
The real, and most important concern, however, should be for the lack of Upright and duty-bound shepherds!

Well, if you look at it THAT way.....

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations, (OR, by the forming of supposed 'Civil' Law Enforcement 'Agencies' and 'Bureaus', whom are becoming increasingly more 'Military' in nature and tactics, rather than a 'standing Army' - 'The Bain of Liberty'. Thus carrying out the subversions by use of a 'back-door' methodology); which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses?
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Well, now this is a NOVEL idea!....

I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government
will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #27

Don't drink the water!....

Now this is just a THOUGHT, mind you....
Has anybody done tests on the chemical contents of the water supplies of cities and states, such as; California, Chicago, Hawaii, Mass., New Jersey, N.Y.C. and ah yes, Washington, DC? Might some type of government 'mind control' agent have been slipped into their water systems unawares?
(It's not like that is way beyond the limits of actions our government has been known to take in the past!)
That is the only logical conclusion that I can come up with. That would somehow(?) provide sound reasoning(?) as to WHY a People would allow UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATIONS to be brought against them? Nothing else, it seems to me, would offer a reasonably SANE explanation as to WHY?
What causes the most alarm in me, however, is the knowledge that these are the MAJOR POPULATION centers of our country.
Used to NEVER consider myself as an alarmist. And frequently would call other people paranoid
for some of the assertions I've heard out of their mouths. Now, I'm beginning to wonder.....

Now, there really MUST be something done about this!...

The Amazing Resiliency of The TRUTH...
It can and has been covered up, twisted, perverted, subverted, hidden and can be hard to swallow. There have even been attempts at raveling and unraveling it, as well as killing and burying it. But, the totally Amazing Quality about The TRUTH is in how resilient it will RISE again!

Sad news for you Alex....

....It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy....
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #26
Well I hate to be the one to inform Mr. Hamilton, but it MUST need reporting! You see, Alex and the other Framers, were operating under a false impression. Even though they had made provision against corrupt politicians. They never conceived that THE WHOLE people would stand idly by while their RIGHTS were stolen away! For they had fought for so long, and so hard for the Freedoms that were our guaranteed RIGHTS. (And, soon will be again). That it was unimaginable that any people would voluntarily allow them to be stolen away!
What in the HELL has HAPPENED to U.S.?
Never mind, think I answered my own question, (sigh!)

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Okay, here we go....

...Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26
(It is obvious that the Framers were operating under the impression that our government system could never become AS CORRUPT as it has. Of course in their day there was sense of DUTY, HONOR and INTEGRITY. As well as a respectful FEAR of the peoples ability to PUT DOWN TYRANNY. In continuation of FEDERALIST #26, it is evident that Hamilton has trouble comprehending the possiblity of such TREASON happening here. But, of course Alex does come up with THE REMEDY - outlined below).
Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses?
Well Alex, I think we have a problem here. Let us say; what if The Peoples State legislatures were the ones Un-Constitutionally ENCROACHING
upon their Citizens National Rights?
What do we do then?
And, if the next SUPPOSED SafeGuard in the equation refuses to hear or act about those usurpations?
(Yes S.C.O.T.U.S., I'm referring to you!)
from head to toe - Federal and State!
Tell us, Alex, WHAT DO WE DO THEN?
Well America, funny you should ask, because Mr. Hamilton had a plan for that as well!...
...Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?
(Yes, indeed Alex I'm afraid that it can be!)
Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so
atrocious a conspiracy,
or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority.
The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.
(Speaking of standing armies)...But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation.
It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy,
especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia,

which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary.

But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.


If the Upright were to use even one half of the cunning, (exhibiting ingenuity), as exhibited by the wicked -
we would not be in the situation that we are today!

Us and Them...

In this great Country of ours, it should not be a matter of us versus them. Since we are ALL United and Bound by the common Ideal of Law - The Constitution, and its attachments.
However, when considering the Enemies of our Freedoms, it should then reason to follow that it clearly is a matter of U.S. versus them.
Would it not be Best for US ALL to return to the following of the principles as outlined by the Framers? It should be apparent to all, that straying off the chosen course has NOT produced a desirable effect. And has the possibility of being quite DEADLY!

When all else fails....

Contention and division seem rampant these days. One faction attacking another, each trying to prove their point. And that the 'other side' is always in the wrong. That is nothing new. There has always been contention. But, given the circumstances that are present in our country these days. Is this a wise predicament to be in? Do we not have a common enemy that desires our demise? Would it not serve us better to find a common ground, on which there is agreement. And work from there as to ironing out the differences? It would seem to serve no useful purpose to be at each others throats. Especially when we have some that would rather that ALL our throats be cut!

What better common ground on which to meet than that of our origin? Which would be the Foundation stones of our country. It is evident there was much contention and argument in the forming of our country. And that there has been contention and argument ALL throughout our history. However, there was an area in which the opposing sides did meet and agree. That was our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Would it not serve us well to reconsider the trials and tribulations the Founders had in the Framing of these crucial documents? And by so doing, would we not perhaps gain a renewed spirit of patriotism upon honest consideration of the meaning of the intent of the Founders? For as it appears now, we are at a very dangerous point in our history. And the experiences, gained by the contentious formulating of our 'Documents of Freedom', may help us in pointing out the right direction for us to take. As the old saying goes - when ALL else fails, read the directions!
First and most important thing to consider. Do we really want a violent uprising in our country? Is not that what our enemies desire? Do we want to play into their hand? It would serve no useful purpose for hundreds, thousands or millions to pay with their lives, so that a point can be proven.
It is plain that there are valid causes for concern by the citizenry as a whole for our Rights. When taking into consideration the seemingly appalling lack of clarity by many in our government. There are many REAL issues that demand immediate attention. That can turn into national calamities if not given proper consideration and recourse.

As pointed out by the Founders, the PEOPLE are the ones by, of and for which our Government was created. And it is quite evident that the PEOPLE are in grave concern for their General Welfare. As we indeed we should be. Does not the principle, in regards to Freedom, of that which affects one, affects ALL still apply? Have we become a country of such selfishness that the welfare of the general population can be so easily cast aside? Why would such reckless disregard be shown for the Rights of the People? Whatever the pretense given for such violation(s), it does not stand to reason.

There are laws which were set up and agreed to by our predecessors, by which our government should be bound. There is no possible justification, that can be asserted, for interference with the principles that have been laid out. For they were intended as a system of checks and balances meant to counter attempts of corruption. There is nothing of any good that can arise from such perversion! The ONLY road that corruption leads to is anarchy and death! World history is riddled with examples, from which to draw on, that prove this conclusion.

A fact, well worth taking into consideration. Is that, as a general rule, those that are corrupting typically don't end up as they had expected. Them, or those that are closest to them. The old adage of 'what comes around - goes around', will always apply.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

To those in Law Enforcement and Military....

We appreciate the jobs that you do! And the obvious difficulties and dangers that go along with doing your job(s). Am writing this out of sense of Civic duty and because of the friends I have in Law Enforcement and Military. Wanted to relay to you that there are people who are grateful for the very hard work that you have to do. And that those, that do their job correctly as intended by the Founders, have allies among the citizenry.
You are our fellow citizens, joint partakers in the struggle for TRUTH and Justice. We ALL have the desire to be Free. And want the ability to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness! Your duty, as far as the Original Intent of our Founders is concerned, was to ENSURE ALL of our RIGHTS to do so - unhindered by vice or corruption, from whatever 'source' it may 'spring-up'. Up to and including the government itself!

A point I would like to make:
Does it not behove you all, especially in consideration of your SWORN duty, to UPHOLD and DEFEND the TRUE CONSTITUTION of the U.S.A. And NOT the twisted and perverted one that it has been turned into? Whatever plausible reasoning they are using, as justification for their twistings and perversions, does not ALTER the FACT that they are VIOLATING THE SUPREME LAW of THE LAND! Do you suppose that when you are asked, by your superiors, to carry out a task that appears questionable, as to its legality in the Constitutional sense. That THEY will take the heat should it be discovered? If not in this life, then in the NEXT, (Which is Gods?).
(i.e. - New Orleans Un-Constitutional gun confiscations).
Military and Police, are you not taking part in joint training operations? In direct VIOLATION of the Posse comitatus Act?

Or, that once you have finished your usefullness and eliminated their opposition amongst the people. That YOU will not be perceived as the next THREAT to their unfullfilled LUST for power and control? That YOU will be considered the next apparent DANGER to their purposes and thus are a problem that will need dealt with? They obviously do not care for YOU or the job that you do. You do your job, and then they turn around and put the 'evil' right back on the street! Only now you have an enemy for life and must continously 'watch your back'and your families, out of fear of possible retribution! It is not Right nor can it be considered 'TRUE JUSTICE'. And, if that's not bad enough, they have thrown our borders wide open and have allowed a more clear and present danger into our country - by the MILLIONS!

For, if they have no LOYALTY to the people whom elected them. Which FACT should be readily OBVIOUS for all to see. What is to cause you to think they shall have loyalty to you? Whom, undoubtedly, they look down upon as a temporary 'usefull tool' that is easily discarded once its purposes have been fulfilled. You are the ones doing the actual work. And they, for the most part, are just pencil pushers whose only concern is on how to get re-elected or where they will take their next vacation! You are the ones that deserve the better pay and benefits - as you are the ones laying the most on the line!

Is it not apparent to ALL of you that safety and TRUTH and Justice is what, those of us whom are Upright, all desire? Safety for our families and loved ones and friends, as well as for our communities and Country? That the people are more than willing to assist in the common defense. (Should the fear of being 'judiciously crucified' for excersizing the Right of Defense be removed). And that, should the leash that has been Un-Constitutionally applied on the people, be removed. Accordingly, as it was the intent of the Framers, we would prove to be assets rather than liabilities to the jobs you do? That you would have MILLIONS 'watching your back', rather than just a select few?

There is a remedy to these usurpation(s). If the Military and Police, were to excersize their Constitutional Duty and arrest and detain ALL Politicians and Judicial 'officials' whom have attempted or actually usurped Un-Constitutional power - over YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS. (An ACTUAL VALID CRIMINAL CHARGE). And, these were immediately replaced with men of true Patriotic repute, WE ALL would be much safer! And, needless to point out, the jobs of the Police and Military would be much easier and more safe. For you would have the SUPPORT of the POPULATION at large!


Now, I can agree with that....

"No man in his senses can hesitate in choosing to be free, rather than a slave."
- Alexander Hamilton
(A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, &c., 15 December 1774)
( Founders' Quote Daily, from The Federalist Patriot)

Monday, December 19, 2005

Words that we must NEVER forget.....

- Nikita Kruschev, at the U.N. in the early 1960's, about the USA
In consideration of the use of communist and nazi style ideals, and practices, in present day U.S. politics. It would due us good to reflect as to whether or not Kruschev's statement was a boast or an actual true declaration. Communism is, by no means dead. And its threat to us is still very real.
One only has to take into account the obvious straying, outside of the Constitutional bounds, by many on the state and federal levels of U.S. Government. In order to perceive that something just isn't quite right here.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Such TRUTH is worthy of Repetition....

What follows is an excerpt from an article posted previously. Feel that the message it gives is of such importance. And has such bearing on the conditions we face today. That it is well worth careful reconsideration;

When a government is in its prime, the public good engages the attention of the whole; the strictest regard is paid to the qualifications of those who hold the offices of the state; virtue prevails; everything is managed with justice, prudence, and frugality; the laws are founded on principles of equity rather than mere policy, and all the people are happy. But vice will increase with the riches and glory of an empire; and this gradually tends to corrupt the constitution, and in time bring on its dissolution. This may be considered not only as the natural effect of vice, but a righteous judgment of Heaven, especially upon a nation which has been favored with the blessings of religion and liberty, and is guilty of undervaluing them, and eagerly going into the gratification of every lust....

By all this we may be led to consider the true cause of the present remarkable troubles which are come upon Great Britain and these colonies, and the only effectual remedy.
We have rebelled against God. We have lost the true spirit of Christianity, though we retain the outward profession and form of it. We have neglected and set light by the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy commands and institutions. The worship of many is but mere compliment to the Deity, while their hearts are far from him. By many the gospel is corrupted into a superficial system of moral philosophy, little better than ancient Platonism; and, after all the pretended refinements of moderns in the theory of Christianity, very little of the pure practice of it is to be found among those who once stood foremost in the profession of the gospel. In a general view of the present moral state of Great Britain it may be said, "There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery," their wickedness breaks out, and one murder after another is committed, under the connivance and encouragement even of that authority by which such crimes ought be punished, that the purposes of oppression and despotism may be answered. As they have increased, so have they sinned; therefore, God is changing their glory into shame. The general prevalence of vice has changed the whole face of things in the British government.

The excellency of the constitution has been the boast of Great Britain and the envy of neighboring nations. In former times the great departments of state, and the various places of trust and authority, were filled with men of wisdom, honesty, and religion, who employed all their powers, and were ready to risk their fortunes and their lives, for the public good. They were faithful counsellors to kings; directed their authority and majesty to the happiness of the nation, and opposed every step by which despotism endeavored to advance. They were fathers of the people, and sought the welfare and prosperity of the whole body. They did not exhaust the national wealth by luxury and bribery, or convert it to their own private benefit or the maintenance of idle, useless officers and dependents, but improved it faithfully for the proper purposes - for the necessary support of government and defence of the kingdom. Their laws were dictated by wisdom and equality, and justice was administered with impartiality. Religion discovered its general influence among all ranks, and kept out great corruptions from places of power.

By Samuel Langdon, the 31st Day of May, 1775

Saturday, December 17, 2005

And the next question is........

For the three honorable branches of government....
Riddle me this;
How does one remain Upright, if one has no SPINE?
(The first one with an answer can ring their buzzer).

Friday, December 16, 2005

To SCOTUS, with love......

The Supreme Court of The United States of America is said to utilize the Federalist Papers in helping to determine the Original Intent of The Framers. With that in mind, I respectfully, submit the following;

To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.

The pausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or TO ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage. (i.e. - California, Hawaii, New Jersey, N.Y.C., Chicago, Mass., San Fransisco, and, ah yes,Washington, D.C. - ALL ARE CONTRARY TO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID! As indicated below by Mr. Hamilton).

But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, unless in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16

Excuse me, but, is this not THE SAME ALEXANDER HAMILTON which STATED the following?;

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
- Alexander Hamilton

And if that illustration isn't enough for you, than perhaps another comment, from an author of The Federalist Papers, will STRIKE THE POINT HOME;

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

Of particular interest is the use of the word 'CONSPIRACY' by Mr. Hamilton. In his description of Judges who appear to be in league with the corrupt Legislature.

If further evidence of The Original Intent of The Framers is desired - I shall be more than happy to OBLIGE.

What say you - S.C.O.T.U.S.?

It is PLAIN, for ALL to see, that YOU must be part of THE CONSPIRACY!

Give US an accounting of yourselves!