"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." _________________________________________________________________________ "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson _________________________________________________________________________ Shredding the lies one slice at a time....
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Oh yeah, that's how I wanted to start the New Year.....
Well, now isn't THIS special......
The following is an excerpt from:
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ;
.
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...
Thursday, December 29, 2005
THE CRUX of OUR PROBLEM....
(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!)
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Do I have to SPELL it OUT for you? Okay, here goes.....
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!
NO COMPROMISE!
Okay, well here's THE PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY!
doesn't INVOLVE U.S.!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
By FAR the most EFFECTIVE weapon....
Monday, December 26, 2005
A letter to the editor....
Editor,
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
(Beccaria, ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 87-88)
AND;
- George Washington
AND;
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
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!
Detestfully,
E. David Quammen
Now this is interesting....
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....
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Let us NEVER forget.....
German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
Saturday, December 24, 2005
CHRIST'S MASS
Friday, December 23, 2005
Well, well - What have we here?.....
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the
(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.
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.
ALL MUNICIPAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS that have UNCONSTITUTIONALLY STOLEN their CITIZEN'S RIGHTS away ARE PRACTISING ILLEGAL USURPATIONS!
S.C.O.T.U.S. MUST OVERTURN THESE PERVERSIONS - NOW!
OR, GET OFF THE BENCH!
YOU ARE NOT FULFILLING YOUR OBLIGATIONS OR DOING YOUR LEGALLY SWORN DUTY! YOUR FAILURE TO ACT IS A DISGRACE AND CAN BE ASSUMED AS COMPLICITY!
Where, Oh where, can they be....
Well, if you look at it THAT way.....
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Well, now this is a NOVEL idea!....
Don't drink the water!....
Now, there really MUST be something done about this!...
Sad news for you Alex....
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Okay, here we go....
*
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?
*
...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?
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.
Cunning....
Us and Them...
When all else fails....
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!
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....
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?).
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!
THINK ABOUT IT
Now, I can agree with that....
Monday, December 19, 2005
Words that we must NEVER forget.....
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Such TRUTH is worthy of Repetition....
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........
Friday, December 16, 2005
To SCOTUS, with love......
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.?
WHY are YOU allowing ILLEGAL USURPATIONS on OUR GOD GIVEN and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS?
It is PLAIN, for ALL to see, that YOU must be part of THE CONSPIRACY!
As the NATURAL GUARDIANS of The CONSTITUTION - WE ARE ENTITLED.....
Give US an accounting of yourselves!