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.

Monday, March 14, 2016

The Alpha and Omega King James Modernized Version of the Holy Bible Updated...

   With many new additions and New Testament references to the Old added up to the end of the book of Acts.
The Alpha and Omega
King James Modernized Version of the Holy Bible
   "Thus says JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer
JEHOVAH of armies; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and
beside me [there is] no Supreme God."--Isaiah 44:6
   "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the
first and the last."--Jehoshua, Revelation 22:13
Large Print Edition.
   The Modernized Version utilizes the original text found in The King James (Authorized) Version. But restores the text to original meaning.

   It must be made clear to the reader from the start. That this work was not done in order to advance or promote any religious doctrine. Nor was it done to influence anyone towards a particular sect of religion. Rather, it is an attempt to advance the TRUTH. As well as correct the perversions to the Word of Supreme God that have been carried out by various religious bodies. For: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.”--James, 1-27. It should be pointed out here as well. That the ones that The Lord Jehoshua the Anointed spoke out most harshly against. Were the religious people of His day: the Lawyers, Pharisees, Priests, Scribes and Sadducees. It would do well for these types to remember that: "For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?"--1st Peter 4:17.

   The first and most important change will be noticed in the return of the original names of God. Which is by far; “Supreme God” and “JEHOVAH”, as well as “Almighty God” and “Eternal God”. And the One Name which is the Most Holy: JAH. These are the names by which He was known in the original sacred text.

   But His real names had failed to be included in the King James Version. Thereby making the word “God” a mere generic term. Which not only lacks the respect that should rightfully be due to the Divine Creator. But, also fails to make apparent the specific attributes by which He had made Himself to be known. Thus robbing the reader of the full understanding that was originally intended to be offered in the Word of God. And put yourself in His place, wouldn't you be angry if you were not called by your given name? Does anyone perceive how utterly audacious and vain it was for our ancestors to change the names of God to conform to their own understanding. Rather than changing their understanding to conform to Him?

   Further modernization of the text was accomplished by replacing words such as; “ye's”, “thine's”, “whence's”, etc., with the modern day English equivalents, such as; “you”, “yours”, “where”, etc. As well as by removing the old English suffixes such as; “est”, “eth”, “ith”, etc. A few archaic words were also changed to modern meaning. For example; words such as: “knew”, were expounded upon in the following manner: [had] sexual relations [with]. In addition: “the LORD of hosts” was correctly translated back to; "JEHOVAH of armies".

   References from the New Testament to the Old have been included. In order to show how the Word of God has been and still is being fulfilled. And it cannot be stressed enough the importance of reading and studying the references. For by so doing faith and understanding of the Word of JEHOVAH are greatly increased.

   Every effort was made, with due diligence, to maintain the correct flow and structure of the original sacred text. This work was undertaken in the hope of making the scriptures easier to understand for the modern day reader. And to correct the inaccuracies of the King James Version. As well as to remove any man-made religious doctrine from the scriptures.

   There has been much contention and confusion about the “Holy Trinity” over the years. All of this is readily dispelled by the understanding that: “And Supreme God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”--Genesis 1:26. And, since God is Mind, Body, and Spirit; so is man and woman. (Only God's Mind, Body and Spirit work in perfect harmony. Whereas that of mankind has not since their fall). Which fallen condition of mankind can only be corrected by Jehoshua.  

   Scriptures in the Old Testament which in any way refer to the coming of Jesus or Jehoshua, (JEHOVAH-saved: His real name), the Anointed (for the word Christ was of Greek origin, and is found nowhere in the Old Testament). Or, the Messiah, (which is the correct Hebrew title for Him), are highlighted in purple. As well as those of His lineage, (to around the time of the carrying away into Babylon).

   The Scriptures in the New Testament held to be spoken by The Lord Jehoshua the Anointed are highlighted in red.

   Both Cruden's Concordance 1835 Edition and Strong's Hebrew And Greek Dictionaries were employed in order to ensure that the original meaning of the sacred text was retained. As well as so that Cruden's or Strong's Concordance, or a Bible Dictionary, can easily be used for further clarification of the scriptures.

   Verification as to the accuracy of this work can readily be accomplished
by consulting: The Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible By James Strong,
S.T.D., LL.D. 1890. 

   Recognition must also be given to Rick Meyers of e-Sword (Bible software - Without which, it would have taken a substantially longer period of time to complete this project.

   All of this was done while keeping the following in mind: "For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."--Revelation 22:18, 19
The latest version can be downloaded


Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Justice Thomas Oral Arguments in Voisine and Armstrong, III v. United States

[Pg. 35]

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Ms. Eisenstein, one question.

[Pg. 36]

   Can you give me ­­ this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?

   MS. [Assistant to the Solicitor General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice] EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I ­­ I'm thinking about that, but I think that the ­­ the question is not ­­ as I understand Your Honor's question, the culpability necessarily of the act or  in terms of the offense ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, I'm ­­ I'm looking at the ­­ you're saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation ­­ misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a  lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, to address ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, while I can't think of specifically triggered by a misdemeanor violation, other examples, for example, in the First Amendment context, have allowed for suspension or limitation of a right to free speech or even free association in contexts where there is a compelling [Pg. 37] interest and risks associated in some cases less than a compelling interest under intermediate scrutiny.

   JUSTICE THOMAS: I'm ­­ this is a ­­ how long is this suspension of the right to own a firearm?

   MS.  EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, the right is suspended indefinitely.

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Okay. So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, it's not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm. And here Congress decided to intervene at the first  instance that an individual is convicted of battering their family members because it ­­ it relied on substantial and well­documented evidence that those individuals pose a ­­ a long­term  and substantial  ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: So in each of these cases had ­­ did any of the defendants, or in this case Petitioners, use a weapon against a family member?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: In neither case did they, but these Petitioners ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: So that the ­­ again, the suspension is not directly related to the use of the weapon. It is a suspension that is actually indirectly [Pg. 38] related or actually  unrelated. It's just a family member's involved in a misdemeanor violation; therefore, a constitutional right is suspended.

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor, but I believe that in terms of the ­­ the relationship between Congress's decision to try to prevent domestic gun violence and its means of doing so ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Even if that ­­ if even if that violence is unrelated to the use ­­ the possession of a gun?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Well, Your Honor, I think the studies that Congress relied upon in formulating the ­­ the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence ban didn't ­­ were directly about the use  of a gun because what they showed is that individuals who have previously been ­­ battered their spouses, pose up to a six­fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, let's ­­ let's say that a publisher is reckless about the use of children, and what could be considered indecent displace and that that triggers a violation of, say, a hypothetical law against the use of children in these ads, and let's say it's a misdemeanor violation. Could you suspend that publisher's right to ever publish again?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I don't think [Pg. 39] you could suspend the right to ever publish again, but I think that you could limit, for example, the manner and means by which publisher ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I think that in terms of a ­­ the compelling purpose that was identified here, which was the prevention of gun violence and the individual nature of the ­­ of  the underlying offense, so here this isn't a misdemeanor crime directed at any person at large. These are misdemeanor batteries directed at members ­­ specified members of the ­­ of that  individual's family. Congress ­­

   JUSTICE THOMAS: Would you have a better case if this were a gun crime?

   MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I think  it would be perhaps a better case, except that the evidence that Congress relied on and ­­ and that the courts below that have addressed the Second  Amendment concerns that Your Honor is highlighting have even gone into a more robust analysis of the ­­ the evidence that ties initial crimes of battery to future gun violence. That evidence is extremely strong. And Congress recognized that this was a recurring escalating offense.

   Petitioners are good examples of this.

[Pg. 40]

   While they didn't reach, thankfully, the point where they were able to reach for a firearm and were prohibited from having a firearm under Federal law, they have each been convicted  multiple times of domestic violence offenses and possess the firearms in close proximity. So these aren't individuals who had long­ago convictions and are suffering from that ban. Congress  also contemplated exactly the lifetime nature of the ban that Your Honor suggested and left it in States' hands to resolve that by allowing States to expunge or pardon convictions in cases  where an individual either petitions to do so or in some States as a matter of course.

   So ­­ so I understand Your Honor's concern that ­­ that this is a potential infringement of individual's Second Amendment rights, but I believe that Congress has identified a compelling  purpose and has found a reasonable means of achieving that purpose.

   JUSTICE  KENNEDY: I ­­ I suppose one answer is ­­ just a partial answer to Justice Thomas's question is SORNA, a violation of sexual offenders have to register before they can travel in  interstate  commerce. But that's not a prevention from traveling at all. It's just a ­­ it's a restriction. . . .

   But what of the REAL government compelling interest? Which is that ALL of our governments, and the departments operating under them, are BOUND by the Supreme Law of the Land. And this, despite whatever 'study' or 'compelling government interest' cock-and-bull story that is manufactured by them?

   ALL of these servants in our government are BOUND by solemn oath to obey the Supreme Law of the Land. And there is NOTHING in that instrument which releases them from that obligation - regardless of how 'compelling' it may be pretended to be. For the FACT remains:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   And THAT is part of the Supreme Law of the Land - which is the ONLY "compelling interest" that has any bearing whatsoever here in the United States of America. If a person that has previously offended is again free. Then they not only have a right, but a duty to bear arms in their own defense. And our governments were expressly Constitutionally prevented from interferring with that specific right in any way, shape, or form.

The "commerce clause" fallacy....

   The perversion by the federal government of the "commerce" clause in the Constitution, in order to "regulate" arms in the  hands of We The People. Is nothing more than a direct usurpation of authority. For they are exercising "power" that was not only never delegated, but was expressly denied. Consider the clause that reads:
   "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
   The laws that the United States government are Constitutionally permitted to make. Must fall within the scope of those delegated "powers", and can extend no further. Especially when those 'laws' are enacted in direct violation of the Constitution.

   Let's clarify the enumerated Constitutional "powers" that were delegated to congress:

   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

   To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

   To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

   To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

   To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

   To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

   To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

   To provide and maintain a Navy;

   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   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;

   To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9

   The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

   The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

   No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

   No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

   No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

   No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

   No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

   No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10
   No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

   No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

   No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
   Does anyone see that the federal government was ever delegated any "authority" or "power" over arms in the hands of We The People? No, you most certainly do not. And the "militia" ploy has already been exploded in a number of U.S. court decisions in the last few years. Despite the fact that the preamble to the Bill of Rights had done it over two centuries ago:
   The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

       THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

       RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

       ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution….

    …Amendment II

    DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense - Which congress had been delegated limited authority and power over]

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

    RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense - Which congress was expressly denied any 'authority' or 'power' over.]

    the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
   Congress has falsely utilized the "commerce" clause in order to justify their current and past infringements. And this, despite the FACT that the use of one delegated "power" cannot be utilized in order to circumvent, undermine, or infringe any enumerated right secured by the Constitution.

   Nor can Congress expand or usurp "powers" that were never delegated, or that were reserved - whether expressly or not. They were intended to be CONFINED by the plain language of our Constitution. So that any infraction of that supreme instrument would be readily noticed and easily dismissed into oblivion.

   The fact that the courts have failed to address this most fundamental of Constitutional FACTS. Only proves that we either have an incredibly ignorant and inept judicial system. Or, that the courts have been knowingly acting in collusion with the tyrannical usurpers. In either event, this perversion must cease and desist immediately.