The Holy Bible King James Modernized Version with the correct names of God and references given in the Gospels is now complete

It can be downloaded in PDF format here.

Obama and the democratic party:

   Obama and the democratic party are nothing more than Philistines. To Wit:

   Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make [them] swords or spears:–1 Samuel 13:19

   This is the reason why we must never allow the disarming of American Citizens:

   So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that [were] with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.–1 Samuel 13:22

   “A View of that great and flourishing City of BOSTON, when in its purity, and out of the Hands of the Philistines.”–A Declaration Setting forth the Causes and Necessity Of their taking up Arms, July 6th, 1775.

They that are doing rightly have no fear of retribution...

   Those that are doing wrong however, very much have a fear of retribution. Hence the reason we see Constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws'....

The Holy Bible King James Modernized Version With the Correct Original Names of God in the Old Testament & Gospels

The Holy Bible

King James Modernized Version

Large Print Edition.

    The Modernized Version utilizes the original text found in The King James (Authorized) Version.

    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 due respect that should be rendered 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?]

    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". 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

    Both Cruden's Concordance 1835 Edition and Strong's Hebrew And Greek Dictionaries were employed in order to ensure that the original meaning, or at the very least the general 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.

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

    This work was undertaken in the hope of making the scriptures easier to understand for the modern day reader. Every effort was made, with due diligence, to maintain the correct structure and flow of the original sacred text.

    Scriptures in the Old Testament which in any way refer to the coming of Jesus the Christ/Messiah 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 Jesus Christ are highlighted in red.

Can be downloaded in PDF format

here

To the 'liberal'...

    The Word of God warned us of you freaks thousands of years ago:

Isa 32:5  The vile person [H5036] shall be no more called liberal, [H5081] nor the churl [H3596] said to be bountiful.

Isa 32:6  For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

[H5036] - From H5034; stupid; wicked (especially impious): - fool (-ish, -ish man, -ish woman), vile person.

[H5081] - From H5068; properly voluntary, that is, generous; hence, magnanimous; as noun, a grandee (sometimes a tyrant): - free, liberal (things), noble, prince, willing ([hearted]).

[H3596] - From H3557 in the sense of withholding; niggardly: - churl.

   Need it be said what will ultimately happen to you cowardly freaks?

Just keep this in mind....

   We The People were intended to be armed in order to keep our 'leaders' from becoming tyrannical. That being the actual FACT of the matter. Why would our 'leaders' want to hinder us from being armed? Or remove our right to be armed altogether?

   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out....

Have again been working on The Holy Bible - King James Modernized Version

Am expanding it to include all of the correct names by which God was known in the original scriptures. ["Supreme God", "JEHOVAH", "Almighty God" and "Eternal God"] Which the "King James Version" had unfortunately ommitted. Am halfway through the book of Psalms at this point. Will post a link to the finished work, which will be in PDF format.

Which is greater, the creature or the ones that Created it?

   All governments in the United States were created by the people. That is a fact that is beyond all dispute.

   When those governments were created by the people, they were established by Constitutional means. The governments are mere creatures of the Constitutions, and were delegated authority and power for specific purposes. These authorities and powers were divided up and diffused into three different branches of government; executive, judicial and legislative. In order that power wouldn't concentrate into the hands of a very few, or worse; one. They formed a system of checks and balances. And intended that each branch would act as a "check" on the others. And keep them within the bounds of their constitutionally delegated authorities and powers. For our fore-fathers had learned the horrible lesson of how that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

   In addition to the above, it was acknowledged by the framers of our constitutions that there will always be varying interests within all societies. That there would be commercial, land-holding, financial, labor, and common interests, etc. And they had intended that the rights of all would be respected and secured. Which was the purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

   Due to the many historical examples of governments operating outside of their Constitutionally delegated authorities and powers. Bill of Rights were deemed necessary in order to further clarify the intended limits of authority and power that had been delegated. And this, in order to restrain the natural tendency of those that govern to abuse the delegated authority and power to the injury of those that are governed.

   Unfortunately, all of those intended safeguards seem to mean little or nothing to many of our current American governments. And haven't for about 100 years. And instead of each branch acting as a "check" on the other two branches. It is obvious that they have combined, and have been increasingly working together to undermine our Constitutions and the rights secured by those instruments.

   Not only that, but the governments have combined and worked together in order to place the interests of the "commercial, land-holding, and financial" segments of society. Above that of those that "labor", and the "common" interests. Instead of serving We The People, they are now serving the interests of "mammon". And, lest it be forgotten, the "love of money is the root of all evil". Which means essentially, that the servants in our governments have prostituted themselves and our rights to the highest bidder.

   This leads to the question: Who or what causes our hired servants to stray from their Constitutional limitations? This can be answered at once by the example set by mr. obama turning to the famous anti-gun billionaire mr. bloomberg around the time of issuing his most recent 'executive order'. The love of 'money' and 'power' are the two historical causes of servants turning against their real masters.

   What is all of this but an utter disrespect of the Creators by those that were created by them? Not only that, but our own fellow citizens, who are in fact our equals. Treat us as if we are their underlings? This fact is made perfectly clear by them calling us "consumers" and "tax-payers". Rather than by our proper titles, which is CITIZENS.

   These things should not be. Certainly not in a land intended to be one of "Equal Rights, Equal Liberty, and Equal Justice for all". These people that have money, land, etc. Wouldn't have anything if it wasn't for the people that labored for them, and thereby enabled them to obtain what they have. Just as our governments wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for We The People.

   It is high time that these creatures be reminded just who their Creators are. And return to treating us with the due respect that we rightfully deserve. For without us - they are NOTHING. And we created these creatures to "secure the blessings of liberty" for us. Not to tell us what our liberties are, or when we can exercise them. They don't tell us - WE TELL THEM.

   And the "commercial, land-holding, and financial" segments of society better remember as well. That if they want their rights secured. Then they damn well better make sure that our rights are secured as well. For what comes around, goes around. And usually when it comes back around - there is substantial interest attached....

Goodbye Mr. Justice Scalia. Hello?

   Hopefully mr. obama will nominate someone like Judge Reed O’Connor of Mance v. Holder fame. Or Judge Edmond E. Chang of Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v. The City of Chicago and Rahm Emanuel. Both are from United States District Courts. (Judge Chang was appointed by Obama.) We can hope the senate will keep obama from trying to place a full-fledged communist into the court.

"as it ought to guard the Constitution agst. encroachments of the Executive who will be apt to form combinations with the demagogues of the popular branch."

June 12, 1787

In Committee of Whole

[Pg. 78]

   Mr. Randolph was for the term of 7 years. The democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this 2d. branch is to controul the democratic branch of the Natl. Legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it. The Senate of Maryland constituted on like principles had been scarcely able to stem the popular torrent. No mischief can be apprehended, as the concurrence of the other branch, and in some measure, of the Executive, will in all cases be necessary. A firmness & independence may be the more necessary also in this branch, as it ought to guard the Constitution agst. encroachments of the Executive who will be apt to form combinations with the demagogues of the popular branch.

[The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 3. Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc. Vol. 3 June 6, 1787.]

Ridicule and Scorn or Respect and Honor?

   When government is operating in an unconstitutional manner, it does so in order to make the people under it cower down to it. Thereby reducing those that are governed by it into mere subjects. That are only fit for ridicule and scorn.

   When government is operating in a constitutional manner, it does so in order to make the people respect and honor it. Thereby making those that are governed by it proud and supportive citizens. That are only fit for due respect and honor.

The reality of [constitutionally perverse] 'gun control'

   In every historical instance of 'gun control laws' being enacted in the United States. The result has always been an increase in crime. This has been particularly true in large cities, such as Chicago and New York. Where the resultant increase in crime, due to constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws'. Ended up in enlarged police forces, that were not only used to [supposedly] fight crime. But had the side effect of reducing the liberty of the law-abiding citizens as well. And thereby making the citizens more dependent upon the government for 'protection'. In addition, it caused the criminal element in society to become more organized. Which of course creates even more fear within the now defenseless community. And, since the citizens have already been for all intensive purposes disarmed. It only causes them to call out for, and acquiesce in, even more 'gun control laws'.

   In other words, not only did the government create the problem by unconstitutionally enacting 'gun control laws' to begin with. They enlarged the criminal element by removing the only effective deterrent that held it in check.

   The government itself, by enacting constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws'. Thereby removes one of the main intended "checks" in our intended system of checks and balances. Which is the fear of an armed population that is able to put it down in the event it becomes tyrannical. And all of history shows that unchecked power has a corrupting influence. That "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is an axiom that was proven beyond all shadow of doubt in the last century. And resulted in the deaths of some 300 million people.

   We The People need to stand on our Constitution, and the rights secured to us by that supreme instrument. And, we need to DEMAND that our hired servants in our governments restore our Constitution and the rights secured by it to original condition. Otherwise, We The People will be forced to do the same as our forebears did. And rise up and put down corrupt government. Or, our corrupt government will only continue to put us down. Quite possibly to the point where we will never be able to rise again.

   Failure to act is a mistake that a free people are only allowed to make once. Just ask the Germans before the Nazi's. Or the Chinese, Russians and Vietnamese before the communists. If you listen real hard, you can still hear the faint screams of warning from the 300 million that died last century.

Here Mr. Madison provides absolute proof that our government(s) have colluded in the destruction of our right(s)...

June 6, 1787.

In Committee of the Whole.

[Pg. 57]

   Mr. Madison 2ded. the motion. He observed that the great difficulty in rendering the Executive competent to its own defence arose from the nature of Republican Govt. which could not give to an individual citizen that settled pre-eminence in the eyes of the rest, that weight of property, that personal interest agst. betraying the national interest, which appertain to an hereditary magistrate. In a Republic personal merit alone could be the ground of political exaltation, but it would rarely happen that this merit would be so pre-eminent as to produce universal acquiescence. The Executive Magistrate would be envied & assailed by disappointed competitors: His firmness therefore wd. need support. He would not possess those great emoluments from his station, nor that permanent stake in the public interest which wd. place him out of the [Pg. 58] reach of foreign corruption. He would stand in need therefore of being controuled as well as supported. An association of the Judges in his revisionary function wd. both double the advantage and diminish the danger. It wd. also enable the Judiciary Department the better to defend itself agst. Legislative encroachments. Two objections had been made 1st. that the Judges ought not to be subject to the bias which a participation in the making of laws might give in the exposition of them. 2dly. that the Judiciary Departmt. ought to be separate & distinct from the other great Departments. The 1st. objection had some weight; but it was much diminished by reflecting that a small proportion of the laws coming in question before a Judge wd. be such wherein he had been consulted; that a small part of this proportion wd. be so ambiguous as to leave room for his prepossessions; and that but a few cases wd. probably arise in the life of a Judge under such ambiguous passages. How much good on the other hand wd. proceed from the perspicuity, the conciseness, and the systematic character wch the Code of laws wd. receive from the Judiciary talents. As to the 2d. objection, it either had no weight, or it applied with equal weight to the Executive & to the Judiciary revision of the laws. The maxim on which the objection was founded required a separation of the Executive as well as the Judiciary from the Legislature & from each other. There wd. in truth however be no improper mixture of these distinct powers in the present case. In England, whence the maxim itself had been drawn, the Executive had an absolute negative on the laws; and the Supreme tribunal of Justice (the House of Lords) formed one of the other branches of the Legislature. In short whether the object of the revisionary power was to restrain the Legislature from encroaching on the other co-ordinate Departments, or on the rights of the people at large; or from passing laws unwise in their principle, or incorrect in their form, the utility of annexing the wisdom and weight of the Judiciary to the Executive seemed incontestable.

[The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 3. Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc. Vol. 3 - Pg. 57-58]

   The traitors in 'power' have not only not been doing their Constitutionally intended duty of operating as checks upon one another. But have in fact joined and operated together in a conspiracy to diminish, or absolutely remove, our right(s). What else can that be termed than treason? For We The People, with our Constitution, are the rightful sovereign authority here in the United States.

Reinstituting the Constitution, and providing an additional Amendment....

   This can be done by an entire return to fundamental principles. By stripping away all previous; legislation, judicial decisions, and executive orders. And, with an amendment to the main body of the Constitution in the following manner:

   Immediately after the preamble:

   "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

   Insert the following:

   In order to obtain the objectives outlined above; We The People delegate, as well as expressly withhold, the following authority and powers. By stipulating what “shall” be authorized to be done. As well as what “shall not” be authorized to be done by our hired servants. And, that any attempt by our hired servants to operate outside of these Constitutionally erected barriers is of no effect – inoperable – non-binding – null and void.

[Body of the Constitution]

   Amendment to the Constitution:

   Hereinafter the ratification of this amendment, any employee of any branch; Executive, Judicial, or Legislative, of any of the governments of the United States of America; local, state, or federal. Whether hired, elected, or appointed, that in any manner; executes, legislates, or judicially decides, in contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America. Will be immediately subject to penalties determined according to the nature of the offence committed. The aforementioned penalties can and/or will include any or all of the following; immediate removal from office, fine, imprisonment, and death.

In order to obtain the objectives outlined above; We The People delegate, as well as expressly withhold, the following authority and power. By stipulating what “shall” be authorized to be done by our hired servants. As well as what “shall not” be authorized,,,"

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[In order to obtain the objectives outlined above; We The People delegate, as well as expressly withhold, the following authority and power. By stipulating what “shall” be authorized to be done by our hired servants. As well as what “shall not” be authorized to be done by our hired servants. And, that any attempt by our hired servants to operate outside of these Constitutionally erected barriers is of no effect – inoperable – non-binding – null and void:]

"Much he sd. had been alledged agst. democratic elections. He admitted that much might be said . . . But compare these with the advantage of this Form in favor of the rights of the people, in favor of human nature."

June 6, 1787

[Pg. 55]

   Col. Mason. Under the existing Confederacy, Congs. represent the States and not the people of the States: their acts operate on the States, not on the individuals. The case will be changed in the new plan of Govt. The people will be represented; they ought therefore to choose the Representatives. The requisites in actual representation are that the Reps. should sympathize with their constituents; shd. think as they think, & feel as they feel; and that for these purposes shd. even be residents among them. Much he sd. had been alledged agst. democratic elections. He admitted that much might be said; but it was to be considered that no Govt. was free from imperfections & evils; and that improper elections in many instances were inseparable from Republican Govts. But compare these with the advantage of this Form in favor of the rights of the people, in favor of human nature. He was persuaded there was a better chance for proper elections by the people, if divided into large districts, than by the State Legislatures. Paper money had been issued by the latter when the former were against it. Was it to be supposed that the State Legislatures then wd. not send to the Natl. legislature patrons of such projects, if the choice depended on them.

   Mr. Madison considered an election of one branch at least of the Legislature by the people immediately, as a clear principle of free Govt. and that this mode under proper regulations had the additional advantage of securing better representatives, as well as of avoiding too great an agency of the State Governments in the General one. He differed from the member from Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) in thinking the objects mentioned to be all the principal ones that required a National Govt. Those were certainly important and necessary objects; but he combined with them the necessity of providing more effectually for the security of private rights, and the steady dispensation of Justice. Interferences with these were evils which had more perhaps than anything else, produced this convention. Was it to be supposed that republican liberty could long exist under the abuses of it practised in some of the States. The gentleman (Mr. Sherman) had admitted that in a very small State, faction & oppression wd. prevail. It was to be inferred then that wherever these prevailed the State was too small. Had they not prevailed in the largest as well as the smallest tho’ less than in the smallest; and were we not thence admonished to enlarge the sphere as far as the nature of the Govt. would Admit. This was the only defence agst. the inconveniences of democracy consistent with the democratic form of Govt. All civilized Societies would be divided into different Sects, Factions, & interests, as they happened to consist of rich & poor, debtors & creditors, the landed the manufacturing, the commercial interests, the inhabitants of this district or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader—the disciples of this religious Sect or that religious Sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is [Pg. 56] always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, Religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. These observations are verified by the Histories of every country antient & modern. In Greece & Rome the rich & poor, the Creditors & debtors, as well as the patricians & plebeians alternately oppressed each other with equal unmercifulness. What a source of oppression was the relation between the parent cities of Rome, Athens & Carthage, & their respective provinces; the former possessing the power, & the latter being sufficiently distinguished to be separate objects of it? Why was America so justly apprehensive of Parliamentary injustice? Because G. Britain had a separate interest real or supposed, & if her authority had been admitted, could have pursued that interest at our expence. We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of among ourselves? Has it not been the real or supposed interest of the major number? Debtors have defrauded their creditors. The landed interest has borne hard on the mercantile interest. The Holders of one species of property have thrown a disproportion of taxes on the holders of another species. The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a Republican Govt. the majority if united have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, & thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests & parties, that in the 1st. place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the 2d place that in case they shd have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us then to try this remedy, and with that view to frame a republican system on such a scale & in such a form as will controul all the evils wch. have been experienced.

[The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 3. Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc. Vol. 3 - Pg. 55-56  June 6, 1787.]

   Once AGAIN; we are a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representation. And most certainly NOT a 'democracy'. As those that represent us are Constitutionally BOUND as to what they "shall" have the power to do. As well as what they "SHALL NOT" have the power to do.

   There are 245 instances listed in our Constitution and amendments as to what our government "shall" have authority and power to do. And 62 instances of what our government "shall not" have authority and power to do. The one instance that is of maximum interest in this discussion is:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

   Don't like it? LEAVE. Tyranny of the 'majority' does NOT rule here.

"Our danger arises from the opposite extreme: hence in Massts. the worst men get into the Legislature. Several members of that Body had lately been convicted of infamous crimes...."

 [June 6, 1787.]

   Mr. Gerry.[2] Much depends on the mode of election. In England the people will probably lose their liberty from the smallness of the proportion having a right of suffrage. Our danger arises from the opposite extreme: hence in Massts. the worst men get into the Legislature. Several members of that Body had lately been convicted of infamous crimes. Men of indigence, ignorance & baseness, spare no pains, however dirty to carry their point agst. men who are superior to the artifices practised. He was not disposed to run into extremes. He was as much principled as ever agst. aristocracy and monarchy. It was necessary on the one hand that the people should appoint one branch of the Govt. in order to inspire them with the necessary confidence. But he wished the election on the other to be so modified as to secure more effectually a just preference of merit. His idea was that the people should nominate certain persons in certain districts, out of whom the State Legislatures shd make the appointment.

[2] “Mr. Gerry.—If the national legislature are appointed by the state legislatures, demagogues and corrupt members will creep in.”—Yates’s Secret Debates in Forming the Constitution, 105.

[The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 3.  Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc. Vol. 3 - Pg. 54]

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice . . . get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever. . . . They had rather have one tyrant than five hundred..."

The Debates in the Federal Convention, Dr. Benjamin Franklin: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. . . . get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever. . . . They had rather have one tyrant than five hundred. It gives more of the appearance of equality among Citizens, and that they like.”, June 2, 1787

Constitutional Convention, "a national Executive ought to be instituted . . . and to execute such other powers “not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature,” . . . Mr. Wilson seconded this motion.

[Constitutional Convention]

[Pg. 36]

Friday June 1st, 1787

   Mr. Madison thought it would be proper, before a choice shd. be made between a unity and a plurality in the Executive, to fix the extent of the Executive authority; that as certain powers were in their nature Executive, and must be given to that departmt. whether administered by one or more persons, a definition of their extent would assist the judgment in determining how far they might be safely entrusted to a single officer. He accordingly moved that so much of the clause before the Committee as related to [Pg. 37] the powers of the Executive shd. be struck out & that after the words “that a national Executive ought to be instituted” there be inserted the words following viz. “with power to carry into effect the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, and to execute such other powers “not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature,” as may from time to time be delegated by the national Legislature.” The words “not legislative nor judiciary in their nature” were added to the proposed amendment, in consequence of a suggestion by Genl. Pinkney that improper powers might otherwise be delegated.

   Mr. ]Soon to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court] Wilson seconded this motion.

[The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 3.  Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc.]

   Gee, mr. 'obama', I guess that means that your dictations, (as well as previous dictations by other dictator wannabe 'presidents'), are MEANINGLESS.

Observations by James Madison, “Representative appointments are sought from 3 motives. 1. ambition. 2. personal interest. 3. public good. Unhappily the two first are proved by experience to be most prevalent. . . .

Observations by James Madison, “Representative appointments are sought from 3 motives. 1. ambition. 2. personal interest. 3. public good. Unhappily the two first are proved by experience to be most prevalent. . . . Whenever therefore an apparent interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from unjust violations of the rights and interests of the minority, or of individuals?”, April, 1787

James Madison to George Washington, "Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States . . . and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals."

   "I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports & imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c &c.

[Pg. 229]

   "Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded & defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its controul on the internal vicissitudes of State policy, and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals. The great desideratum which has not yet been found for Republican Governments seems to be some disinterested & dispassionate umpire in disputes between different passions & interests in the State. The majority who alone have the right of decision, have frequently an interest, real or supposed in abusing it."--James Madison, April 16, 1787, letter to George Washington. Pgs. 228-29 [The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 2.  Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc.]

2-21-1787: "If the measures however on foot for disarming and disfranchising those concerned in it should be carried into effect, a new crisis may be brought on."

   "Our latest information from Massts. gives hopes that the meeting or as the Legislature there now style it, the Rebellion is nearly extinct. If the measures however on foot for disarming and disfranchising those concerned in it should be carried into effect, a new crisis may be brought on."--James Madison, Feb. 21, 1787 letter to George Washington. Pg. 210 [The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 2.  Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc.]

Also See:

The REAL reasons the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was demanded to be secured in the United States Constitution

It's all about the money, honey: "In fact most of our political evils may be traced up to our commercial ones, as most of our moral may to our political. . . . and that is far enough to perpetuate our difficulties unless the luxurious propensity of our own people can be otherwise checked."

   Commercial interests, (the regulation thereof), is the main point as to what led to the establishment of our present Constitution. That, and the unchecked lust by We The People for luxury:

   "A Quorum of the deputies appointed by the Assembly for a commercial convention had a meeting at Richmond shortly after I left it, and the Attorney tells me, it has been agreed to propose Annapolis, for the place, and the first monday in Sepr. for the time of holding the Convention. It was thought prudent to avoid the neighborhood of Congress, and the large Coercial towns, in order to disarm the adversaries to the object, of insinuations of influence from either of these quarters. I have not heard what opinion is entertained of this project at New York, nor what reception it has found in any of the States. If it should come to nothing, it will, I fear confirm G.B. and all the world in the belief that we are not to be respected, nor apprehended as a nation in matters of commerce. The States are every day giving proofs that separate regulations are more likely to set them by the ears, than to attain the common object. When Massts. set on foot a retaliation of the policy of G.B. Connecticut declared her ports free. N. Jersey served N. York in the same way. And Delaware I am told has lately followed the example, in opposition to the commercial plans of Penna. A miscarriage of this attempt to unite the States in some effectual plan, will have another effect of a serious nature. It will dissipate every prospect of drawing a steady revenue from our imposts either directly into the federal treasury, or indirectly thro’ the treasuries of the Commercial States, and of consequence the former must depend for supplies solely on annual requisitions, and the latter on direct taxes drawn from the property of the Country. That these dependencies are in an alarming degree fallacious is put by experience out of all question. The payments from the States under the calls of Congress have in no year borne any proportion to the public wants. During the last year, that is from Novr, 1784, to Novr 1785, the aggregate payments, as stated to the late Assembly fell short of 400,000 dollrs, a sum neither equal to the interest due on the foreign debts, nor even to the current expences of the federal Government. The greatest part of this sum too went from Virga, which will not supply a single shilling the present year. Another unhappy effect of a continuance of the present anarchy of our commerces will be a continuance of the unfavorable balance on it, which by draining us of our metals furnishes pretexts for the pernicious substitution of paper money, for indulgences to debtors, for postponements of taxes. In fact most of our political evils may be traced up to our commercial ones, as most of our moral may to our political. The lessons which the mercantile interests of Europe have received from late experience will probably check their propensity to credit us beyond our resources, and so far the evil of an unfavorable balance will correct itself. But the Merchants of G.B. if no others will continue to credit us at least as far as our remittances can be strained, and that is far enough to perpetuate our difficulties unless the luxurious propensity of our own people can be otherwise checked. This view of our situation presents the proposed Convention as a remedial experiment which ought [Pg. 155] to command every assent; but if it be a just view it is one which assuredly will not be taken by all even of those whose intentions are good. I consider the event therefore as extremely uncertain, or rather, considering that the States must first agree to the proposition for sending deputies, that these must agree in a plan to be sent back to the States, and that these again must agree unanimously in a ratification of it. I almost despair of success. It is necessary however that something should be tried & if this be not the best possible expedient, it is the best that could possibly be carried thro’ the Legislature here. And if the present crisis cannot effect unanimity, from what future concurrence of circumstances is it to be expected? Two considerations particularly remonstrate against delay. One is the danger of having the same1game played on our Confederacy by which Philip managed that of the Grecians. I saw eno’ during the late Assembly of the influence of the desperate circumstances of individuals on their public conduct to admonish me of the possibility of finding in the council of some one of the States fit instruments of foreign machinations. The other consideration is the probability of an early increase of the confederated States, which more than proportionally impede measures which require unanimity, as the new members, may bring sentiments and interests less congenial with those of the Atlantic States than those of the latter are one with another."--James Madison, March 18, 1786 letter to Thomas Jefferson. [The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 2.  Online Library of Liberty.  Liberty Fund, Inc.]

   Anyone that is even half-way awake can see that the federal government has left us right back in the same situation that caused the creation of it to begin with. It is therefore an abysmal failure, and needs to be done away with. It has neither achieved nor maintained any of its intended purposes. And conversely, has made our situation even worse than when we first established it. Hence:

   That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."--Declaration of Independence IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

Our Constitution is a dead letter

   None of our constitutional safeguards are of any effect. The intended watch-dogs; the courts, are nothing more than a pathetic joke. Any honest legal mind knows what the meaning of "shall not be infringed" is. Yet these judicial idiots somehow think that we are fools enough to believe that our right can be infringed.

   Does anyone realize just how dangerous that really is? If our hired servants can circumvent and for all intensive purposes destroy one right. Then they can do the same to all of our rights. Not only can they, but they eventually will. For that is the nature of unrestrained 'power'.

   While it may not mean much to this generation. What about the next? You know, the one our children will grow up and age in. Is it really fair to them to pass on a corrupt government to them? Knowing that if that government remains unchecked and uncontrolled. It will just garner even more 'power' unto itself. And will eventually turn totally tyrannical at some point. For that is the very nature of the beast. As hundreds of millions learned last century to their sorrow and demise.

   Our forebears had to finally confront tyranny, after trying to reason with it for many years. Does even one drop of their blood still flow in any of our veins?

More Socialism from Chicago....

   From a Jan. 6, 1889 meeting of the Socialistic Labor party, at Waverly Hall in Chicago:

The Indianapolis Journal, “Vote for what you want, but do not forget that the bill of rights gives every man the right to keep and bear arms, and, when you want to vote take your little musket to the polls with you, and then your vote will be counted, not before. Take the ballot, but first put an idea, a strong and determination behind it and then buy yourselves a good Winchester rifle. Be prepared to fight for your rights. Men who are armed are bound to be free….”, January 7, 1889

Also See:

Socialism in America

“When our fathers achieved independence, the corner-stone of the government they constructed was INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and the social organization they established were not for the surrender but the protection of natural rights. . . ."

Jefferson Davis, “When our fathers achieved independence, the corner-stone of the government they constructed was INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and the social organization they established were not for the surrender but the protection of natural rights. . . . The law does not invade the right to keep and bear arms for private and public use but the abuse of that right by such practice as BEFITS THE ASSASSIN, the burglar, the invader of the rights of others. . . . The natural rights of man are those which belong to the social condition, that being his natural state of existence and those are termed inalienable, the exercise of which society has no right to obstruct.”, Sept. 20, 1887

"Whatever measure of success was achieved became a potent weapon in working their ultimate overthrow.”

The Stark County Democrat, “It is arbitrary power in the hands of civil magistrates. In the last eighty years twenty-five distinct laws of a coercive character, cutting off personal liberty, free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, to hold public meetings, etc. . . . recalls the blundering of our home Radicals an[d] Jacobins in the reconstruction they proposed and attempted for the south after the war. Whatever measure of success was achieved became a potent weapon in working their ultimate overthrow.”, March 31, 1887

   Obviously those in the democratic party are not students of history. Or, they think that they are 'special' and it doesn't apply to them....

"Mr. Smith asserted that he had seen a great many years ago an old document which was called the Constitution of the United States wherein it granted the right to every citizen to bear arms . . . I don’t suppose the present legislature will pay any attention to such an unimportant document as that"

Arizona Territory, “The bill of Mr. Scott, of Apache, prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons was under discussion in the House. . . . Mr. Smith asserted that he had seen a great many years ago an old document which was called the Constitution of the United States wherein it granted the right to every citizen to bear arms, but he further added, I don’t suppose the present legislature will pay any attention to such an unimportant document as that. . . .”, Jan. 30, 1887

“The use is a legal thing. The abuse is an illegal thing. . . . every man must so use his own property as not to injure the legal rights of another. . . . The manufacture, the ownership and the bearing of deadly weapons is allowed by law"

The Prohibition Crusade: “The use is a legal thing. The abuse is an illegal thing. . . . there is, confessedly, a kindred maxim of the law, of equal obligation, that every man must so use his own property as not to injure the legal rights of another. . . . The manufacture, the ownership and the bearing of deadly weapons is allowed by law, says the Constitution: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”, Sept. 7, 1886

7-14-1886: “The right to bear arms is guaranteed to every citizen by the highest written law . . .”

Judge Noonan: “it is folly to create a scare by making capital out of the vaporing of a few men who have peculiar views on social and political questions; it is time enough to prosecute when some overt act has been committed.” . . . Wichita Daily Eagle: “The right to bear arms is guaranteed to every citizen by the highest written law . . .”, July 14, 1886

2-7-1884: “That all persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights . . . defending their lives and liberties . . . protecting property . . . That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in delence of his own home, person and property..."

Montana Constitutional Convention, “That all persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reconed the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties . . . protecting property . . . That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in delence of his own home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question….”, Feb. 7, 1884

12-19-1883: “of the natural or constitutional right “to bear arms.” If any citizen thinks or feels there is any necessity for him to carry a deadly weapon as one who bears arms, he has a perfect right to do so. The good citizen will not hesitate to avail himself of this privilege….”

The Hartford Herald, “of the natural or constitutional right “to bear arms.” If any citizen thinks or feels there is any necessity for him to carry a deadly weapon as one who bears arms, he has a perfect right to do so. The good citizen will not hesitate to avail himself of this privilege….”, Dec. 19, 1883

South Dakota Constitution, "and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights . . . defending life and liberty . . . protecting property . . . The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned . . . is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”

South Dakota Constitution, “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property . . . The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned. . . . The blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. . . . The state of Dakota is an inseparable part of the American union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. . . . To guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”, Sept. 9, 1883

Some advice for those intent on destroying our rights....

Go to hell.

Go directly to hell.

Do not pass go.

Do not collect $200.00.

All of your past 'laws' are

NULL and VOID.

And any of your future 'laws' will also be

NULL and VOID.

You yourselves are equally

 NULL and VOID.

So as stated before;

GO TO HELL. 

8-19-1881: “notwithstanding the provision of that old fogy instrument, the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms….”

Sacramento Daily Record-Union, “notwithstanding the provision of that old fogy instrument, the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms….”, Aug. 19, 1881

5-22-1880: "I am sorry to say that I do not feel enthusiastic knowing as I do that the liberty of the people to bear arms has been denied them by proclamation, and as said proclamation has never been rescinded…”

The Salt Lake Herald, “I find that the gentlemen have done me the honor to put my name with the committee on programme. Now as I have a very disagreeable recollection of Fourth of July celebrations, I am sorry to say that I do not feel enthusiastic knowing as I do that the liberty of the people to bear arms has been denied them by proclamation, and as said proclamation has never been rescinded…”, May 22, 1880

10-14-1879: “But the lesson wasted on the community should be taken to heart by the individual. The right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution should be looked upon as something more than a right; as a duty..."

The Weekly Miner, “But the lesson wasted on the community should be taken to heart by the individual. The right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution should be looked upon as something more than a right; as a duty which every citizen should carefully fulfill. . . . Every man should own a gun. Not only that, but he should know how to use it, and use it well.”, Oct. 14, 1879

10-4-1879: "There might arise circumstances in which the ballot-box would need the support of the cartridge-box. But whether or no there should ever be the necessity for such support, it is not in keeping with the spirit of our political institutions to curtail the right of the citizens to bear arms."

Northern Ohio Journal, “There might arise circumstances in which the ballot-box would need the support of the cartridge-box. But whether or no there should ever be the necessity for such support, it is not in keeping with the spirit of our political institutions to curtail the right of the citizens to bear arms. Not only that, but it is In direct violation of the organic law of the land. The second amendment of the constitution provides in express terms that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” . . . Two years ago the Pittsburg riots showed what Labor, when maddened by Corporation oppression, could do. Ever since it has been looked upon with a mingled feeling of suspicion and fear by Corporations and those acting in their interests, and this attempt at disarming the workingmen of Chicago is the outcome of this feeling.”, Oct. 4, 1879

9-9-1879: "the last State Legislature prohibiting the carrying of arms by organizations except under permits issued by the State authorities, is void. The ground of the decision is that the law conflicts with the Federal statutes in force since 1792*.”

The Weekly Miner, “Judge Barnum to-day delivered a decision to the efect that the militia law enacted by the last State Legislature prohibiting the carrying of arms by organizations except under permits issued by the State authorities, is void. The ground of the decision is that the law conflicts with the Federal statutes in force since 1792*.”, Sept. 9, 1879

9-6-1879: "This the judge decides is in contravention of the provision of the federal constitution which declares that the right of the citizen to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged, and hence is void and of no effect. The decision is no doubt a proper one..."

Daily Globe, “The law in question punishes heavily any body of men bearing arms who [d]o not possess authority from the State. This the judge decides is in contravention of the provision of the federal constitution which declares that the right of the citizen to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged, and hence is void and of no effect. The decision is no doubt a proper one, yet because it may afford the communists of that city a chance to organize, the papers are abusing the judge who formulated it.”, Sept. 6, 1879

Chicago communists: "an agreed case before Judge Barnard, one of the Chicago circuit judges, who now decides against the law . . . He declares it to be unconstitutional and that all men who please may arm themselves….”

The Ottawa Free Trader, “The provision was mainly directed against the Chicago communists and agrarians, who were known to be secretly organizing into military companies and drilling and arming themselves preparatory, it was feared, to some signal communistic outbreak, like the great riots of 1877. . . . naturally encountered the fiercest opposition of those organizations, and contending that it was in contravention of the great constitutional right of all citizens to bear arms. . . . an agreed case before Judge Barnard, one of the Chicago circuit judges, who now decides against the law, or at least that portion of it which we have quoted. He declares it to be unconstitutional and that all men who please may arm themselves….”, Sept. 6, 1879

Chicago: "They claim the constitutional right to bear arms" . . . . And hey, isn’t that where our soon to be EX-president hailed from? Why yes, I do believe it is....

The historical evidence seems to point to Chicago as definitely having been the birthplace of ‘socialism‘ here in America:

   The Chicago Socialists are loudly demanding a row. Their picnic, held some weeks since, furnished them a large sum of money, which they invested in muskets and rifles. Last week the Socialistic companies, thus armed, turned out several hundred strong, and paraded the streets. Respectable Chicago was alarmed at this display–especially as the regular militia of that city is a much smaller military body than that the Reds can turn out, and petitioned the Illinois Legislature for a bill prohibiting any other military body than the militia to parade under arms in the streets. It in on this law that the Socialists propose to fight. They claim the constitutional right to bear arms, and their organ declares that if this law is passed they will turn out with arms the very next day to show their defiance and contempt of it. The Chicago Socialists are aware of their strength and power, and propose to try them.

[The New Orleans Daily Democrat, Official Journal Of The Constitutional Convention Of The State Of Louisiana. New Orleans, Tuesday, April 29, 1879. Vol. IV.–No. 132. Pg. 4]

   And hey, isn’t that where our soon to be EX-president hailed from? Why yes, I do believe it is. And notice the use of the word “Red” in the article, which is typically the color employed by the communists….

Also See:

Socialism in America

 

Misery loves company....

   It can rightly be claimed, that the ones that cry and wail to have our constitutionally secured right to keep and bear arms restricted and/or removed. Are indeed cowardly and fearful miserable little creatures. They are also the very same ones that desire to raise taxes for their little schemes. And demand that government take from those that work in order to give to those that do not.

   These creatures usually put very little into our system, but demand much more out of it than they will ever contribute into it. Yet they’ll work above and beyond in order to try and take from others. They are so dissatisfied with their existence, that they strive in order to bring everyone else down to their level.

   These types of creatures have been around since the beginning of time. They are motivated by; envy, fear, greed, lust, selfishness, sloth and other like emotions. They are miserable and they know it. They also want to make damn sure that everyone else knows it. They’ll work as hard as they possibly can in order to make sure that everyone else is just as miserable as they are.

   To be sure, there are those of us that indeed do need some help occasionally. And, it is the moral thing to do to help them. To try and give them a hand up out of whatever pit that the unfortunate circumstances of life caused them to fall into. There are also others that need help from the minute that they are born. And it would be both cruel and a disgrace to not provide for their needs in this life. For we ourselves may someday find ourselves in similar conditions. That is just the way life is.

   But it is way past time to stop giving heed to these vile little creatures that are sucking the life out of us. Let those types sink into their own sorry pool of oblivion. For it is these very same types that have brought America to the precipice of disaster on which we are teetering right now. Their pretended ‘cures’ end up causing far more damage than the original perceived problem that was intended to be “cured” in the first place. And generally set up a precedent which allows them to come up with even more dangerous ‘cures‘, to “solve” the problems they themselves created previously.

   These are the same types of creatures that brought about communism, fascism, socialism, and various other evil and vile kinds of governments. The very same types that caused the deaths of MILLIONS last century. And condemned others to a life-time of slavery.

   We MUST shut them out, or otherwise these pitiful examples of human beings will drag us all down with them. They will put an end to all freedom and liberty, and finally to life itself….

South Carolina State Senator Stephen Atkins Swails, "the Ku-Klux have reappeared directly under the leadership of the Democratic Executive Committee” . . . “Judge Wallace . . . He said that he had no authority to order the men out of the village. They had a constitutional right to bear arms."

The National Republican, Washington, D.C., South Carolina State Senator Stephen Atkins Swails, “But now, emboldened by recent events, and encouraged to believe that the law is powerless to thwart them, the masks are no longer worn; the Ku-Klux have reappeared directly under the leadership of the Democratic Executive Committee” . . . “Judge Wallace . . . He said that he had no authority to order the men out of the village. They had a constitutional right to bear arms. When by the beating of a drum they disturbed his court he had a right to interfere….”, Oct. 15, 1878

7-27-1878: State of Washington Constitution, “We The People, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our freedom . . . Sec. 19. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but this shall not be so construed as to justify the carrying of concealed weapons.”

State of Washington Constitution, “We The People, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our freedom . . . Sec. 19. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but this shall not be so construed as to justify the carrying of concealed weapons.”, July 27, 1878

"The Chicago Socialists.—That the Socialists of Chicago are arming and drilling . . . they intend to try the merit of the constitutional provision of the United States which guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms."

   The Chicago Socialists.—That the Socialists of Chicago are arming and drilling, one of their leaders, A.R. Parsons, frankly admits. He informs a reporter of the Tribune that they intend to try the merit of the constitutional provision of the United States which guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms. “At our mass meetings this summer,” he says, ” we shall carry our arms with us, and if the armed assassins and paid murderers employed by the capalistic class undertake to disperse and break up our meetings, as they did in such an outrageous manner last summer, they will meet foes worthy of their steel.” “In other words, you don’t propose to use the arms unless the other side become the aggressors?” ” We don’t propose to use arms unless they interfere with us and try to break up our meetings. But as to their being the aggressors, why, that’s what the capalists always are. They are always treating the working classes with violence. Isn’t starvation wages violence? Isn’t trampism violence? Isn’t depriving men by the hundred thousand of the right to live and support their families violence, and violence of the most infamous character? We simply resist. We protect ourselves. That’s all.”

[St. Landry Democrat, Opelousas, LA., Saturday, May 18, 1878. Volume 1. Number 18. Pg. 1]

 

Also See:

 

Socialism in America.

"or even checking these manifestations of the communistic spirit. It is conceded that these men have a lawful right to band together in secret, to bear arms..."

Public Ledger, “They number many thousands, and include what are regarded as the most dangerous elements of our heterogeneous population. . . . or even checking these manifestations of the communistic spirit. It is conceded that these men have a lawful right to band together in secret, to bear arms and to drill, and that a criminal intention cannot be assumed in advance of criminal acts….”, May 10, 1878

   And yes, it indeed was "conceded" one year later in Chicago:

“The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not.”

Illinois–Cook County Circuit Court.

 
People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt.

 
[1879]

Chicago: "The Superintendent of Police says that the Communists are drilling in “circle” of twelve, so as to avoid exciting alarm, and that a great many of them have arms,–shot-guns, revolvers, Enfield rifles, Springfield rifles, etc...."

 Letter from Chicago.

THE COMMUNE.

Chicago, April 26, 1878.

       To the Editor of the Free Press and Times:

       There is a very serious prospect of another Communist war in our city, at no distant day, and of much more formidable proportions than that of last Summer, which caused so much loss of life and damage to property.

       The facts, so far as your correspondent is enabled to make them public, are these:

       For some months, the police authorities have been aware that there were numerous Communistic organizations throughout the city, and at the city election, held the first Tuesday of this present month, they came forward with sufficient strength to elect their Aldermen in both the 13th and 17th wards. Previous to that day their movements had been secret, but since the result of that election, they have grown bolder, and now their leaders assert that they have the same right to bear arms as the organized militia.

       For several weeks they have been secretly drilling in small squads, in various halls stables and cellars, and within the past week have been forming into companies. Last Sunday morning, at a very early hour, a large body of these men was discovered drilling on the open drairies, west of the city. The organization numbers from 6,000 to 10,000, and it is positively ascertained that over two thousand of them are armed with guns, many of which are the Henry-Martini breech-loading rifles, and a communist leader is known to be now in New York purchasing arms and ammunition for this city. Major General A.C. Ducat, commanding the State troops, says: I do believe this subject is graver one than most people are aware of; it is one of very serious consideration.” The Chicago Times says:

       There is no doubt whatever that at the first intimation of a break between laborer and employer, the communists stand ready with their guns to enforce their ideas. Nothing short of a complete revolution in the employment of labor will satisfy them. There must be no employer but the laborer himself. Co-operation in all branches of business is his dream, and he will attempt to realize it by force, and soon, too.

       The creed of these men [i]s that “property is robbery,” and the industrious and thrifty must distribute the accumulated profits of their labor among those who will not work or save. When the next riot comes, instead of a mob, the authorities will have to confront an army, sufficiently equipped and drilled and commanded by persons who have acquired skill and knowledge in the military service of France and Germany.

       The Superintendent of Police says that the Communists are drilling in “circle” of twelve, so as to avoid exciting alarm, and that a great many of them have arms,–shot-guns, revolvers, Enfield rifles, Springfield rifles, etc., quite a number, who were soldiers, having the guns they had during the rebellion. He has detectives among them, who attend their meetings and know all their plans, and, while they are peace able and law-abiding now, they are liable to

BREAK LOOSE IN A MOMENT AND MAKE THINGS LIVELY.

       He deplores the fact that the police force is without guns, saying it is impossible to protect the people in case of a riot unless every man has a repeating rifle. The Departments of Boston, New York, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Louisville. in truth, in every large city, are armed and drilled, while Chicago is the only large city in the country whose police force is at the mercy of a prepared mob. The men now have no encouragement to risk their lives, being poorly paid and badly cared for by the city; and, besides, there are less than 350 to look after 500,000 people. “The citizens of Chicago,” said he, yesterday afternoon, “do not realize the extent of the mine under their feet, or they would make preparations for the explosion when it comes.” A reporter told him of a subscription in the Board of Trade, and asked how the money could be most advantageously used. “In buying guns.” was the reply.

       A Communist leader who was interviewed stated that the Socialist party was working now under the instructions of a National Executive Committee, whose headquarters are at Cincinnati. A circular issued to the different Sections of the country, some four months ago, advised the various committees to organize companies in each city, town, and hamlet, where it was possible, throughout the United States. In this State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, California and Massachusetts, this has been carried out to the letter. It is claimed that in New York city there are twenty battalions organized, having an enrolled membership of over 16,000 men, largely composed of Poles, Bohemians, Scandinavians, Germans, Frenchmen, and a few Irish, under the lead of the notorious Megy and Schwab. In California the best organization exists. Pittsburg is the armory for the party. The guns and ammunition that they possess, it is claimed, are stored there, because, the leaders hold, “that the boys there know how to use them.”

       It is claimed that the riots of last Summer were started prematurely, but this time there is to be no failure. The work is to commence in Chicago at a given signal, when simultaneously Schwab and Kearney and the other leaders will gather their hosts together, and the work of carnage and destruction commence.

       Our city is in a very poor condition to put down any serious uprising, as the police force has been greatly reduced on account of the serious financial embarrassment of the Municipal Treasury. We have perhaps two thousand volunteer militia and police–ready for service. These are manifestly insufficient for the task which may at any moment be imposed upon them. The “reserve militia” number at least fifty thousand men, but they are not organized, equipped, or drilled. There may be some exaggeration as to the purposes of the Communists; but that we have a very numerous “dangerous class” here is beyond question.

Yours,     J.N.H.

[Burlington Weekly Free Press, Burlington, VT., Friday Morning, May 10, 1878.Vol. LI. New Series, Vol. XXIV. Number 46. Pg. 1]

 Also See:

Communism In America

Hmmmmmm. Notice how that "In this State [Illinois], Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, California and Massachusetts", are all 'gun control' Mecca's? Thought provoking, yes?

"It is the constitutional right of every citizen to bear arms. It is not only his privilege but his duty in view of the fact that liberty in its last analysis is but the blood of the brave...."

   "It is the constitutional right of every citizen to bear arms. It is not only his privilege but his duty in view of the fact that liberty in its last analysis is but the blood of the brave. The theory of our government is that we are not to rely upon a standing army except as a nucleus of educated soldiers around which, as occasion requires, the citizens may rally for the defence of home and country. Citizen soldiers are never dangerous to liberty. They are but the people in their defensive armor--the phase they present and the attitude they take for the protection of their property, their families, and their dearest rights. They are our safety in trouble and at all times our pride--both our plume and shield."--Brig. Gen. Samuel McGowan, Feb. 22, 1878 speech delivered to the Washington Artillery of Charleston. [The Abbeville Press And Banner, Abbeville, S.C., Wednesday, February 27, 1878. No. 38. Volume XXV. Pg. 2] (Samuel McGowan was an Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court from 1879 to 1894.)

2-21-1878: "...the right to bear arms . . . All the rights above enumerated, though, perhaps, they do not confer any special powers or attributes upon the Government as a governing power, are nevertheless parts of the Constitution..."

The National Republican, Washington, D.C., “Among other rights of this class may be mentioned the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the prohibition against expost facto laws, and against unequal taxation; freedom of speech and of the press; the right to bear arms . . . All the rights above enumerated, though, perhaps, they do not confer any special powers or attributes upon the Government as a governing power, are nevertheless parts of the Constitution–that sacred deposit of the collective will of the whole people and are each and every one of them equally protected by the supremacy of that Constitution. . . . Why? Simply because it is the supreme law even in his own State….”, Feb. 21, 1878

3-23-1877: “But how was it in another state a month ago? South Carolina is a sovereign state like New York; her citizens have the same right to bear arms . . . "

The Cambria Freeman, “But how was it in another state a month ago? South Carolina is a sovereign state like New York; her citizens have the same right to bear arms . . . found no tongue to denounce this instance wherein the soldiers of his army had been used to prevent the exercise of the undeniable right of citizens.”, March 23, 1877

11-1-1876: “The Constitution guarantees to ever citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Our own Supreme Court has construed this to mean any of those arms which are used in war. . . ."

The Weekly Clarion, “The Constitution guarantees to ever citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Our own Supreme Court has construed this to mean any of those arms which are used in war. . . . There is no doubt that Sprott had a perfect right to advise the negroes to carry their arms “nearer” the public meeting.”, Nov. 1, 1876

10-24-1876: “The constitution of the country gives them the right to bear arms, and the Clinton massacre teaches that it is prudent at least to avail themselves of the right.”

The Daily Clarion, “The constitution of the country gives them the right to bear arms, and the Clinton massacre teaches that it is prudent at least to avail themselves of the right.”, Oct. 24, 1876

10-16-1876: "without interfering, however, with the right of every freeman to bear arms. . . . By this provision, the people will be enabled to get rid of incompetent Judges“

The Charlotte Democrat, “gives the Legislature power to enact laws against carrying concealed weapons, without interfering, however, with the right of every freeman to bear arms. . . . By this provision, the people will be enabled to get rid of incompetent Judges“, Oct. 16, 1876

“This they have steadily refused to do, on the ground that the arms of the clubs belong individually to the men carrying them, having, as is alleged, been purchased by them...."

The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., “This they have steadily refused to do, on the ground that the arms of the clubs belong individually to the men carrying them, having, as is alleged, been purchased by them. They take the ground that Gov. Chamberlain, in issuing his proclamation, violated the provisions of the Federal Conatltution, which guarantees that the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, Oct. 16, 1876

Another one for the usurping 'obama' to choke on:

   From the first African American Governor--

Governor P.B.S. Pinchback, “When a people become so familiar with crime as to seek to defend it, and ridicule all attempts to repress it, it becomes incumbent on us to notice to where we are drifting. The right of free speech and to bear arms were held so dear by the fathers of our land that they deemed them important enough to throw around them the organism of protection by the constitution. . . . Whereas the colored people . . . do not possess the arms wherewith to defend themselves, for the reason that they have been taken away from them by force. What can they do to help them selves? Positively nothing….”, Aug. 25, 1876

   Well, mr. 'obama', how does it feel destroying all of the work that the other African-American's that were "first" in their political offices had done?

Governor Pinchback, “Neither free speech, a free press, peaceable assemblage, the right to keep and bear arms, nor security for persons or property, all of which are constitutional rights, were to-day enjoyed by Republicans in the South...."

Governor Pinchback, “Neither free speech, a free press, peaceable assemblage, the right to keep and bear arms, nor security for persons or property, all of which are constitutional rights, were to-day enjoyed by Republicans in the South. . . . A hearty and generous recognition of the rights of all, by all, without reserve or exception,” he said, “would accomplish it”, Aug. 20, 1876

“A single occurrence like the Hamburg massacre, where it is undisputed that six citizens of the United States, while in the exercise of a lawful right (the right to bear arms), especially guaranteed in the Constitution, were ruthlessly slain . . ."

The New Orleans Democrat, “A single occurrence like the Hamburg massacre, where it is undisputed that six citizens of the United States, while in the exercise of a lawful right (the right to bear arms), especially guaranteed in the Constitution, were ruthlessly slain . . . What, then, ought we to do if this massacre was not a single instance but one of a series of many hundred murders….”, Aug. 14, 1876

Here you go 'obama', take another puff...

Nebraska Advertiser, “the Democratic Kuklux . . . Gov. Chamberlin, in his letter to the President regarding this affair, says: “Before the hour for trial arrived on Saturday many white citizens from the country around Hamburg began to gather in the town, armed with guns and pistols.” . . . “This armed mob demanded a surrender of the arms of the militia, which they had no right to do, for the negroes have the same right to bear arms as have the whites…”, Aug. 10, 1876

Hey Obama, (you treasonous p.o.s), put THIS in your pipe and smoke it....

U.S. Representative Joseph Rainey, [was the first African American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the first African American to preside over the House.] “These men said that they were willing to surrender the few arms they had . . . Did they expect from Gen. Butler any more than is accorded to them by the constitution? I ask whether they had not as much right to bear arms as Gen. Butler or anybody else. . . . I ask you, citizens of the United States, would you stand it? . . . Are you not going to allow us any right of self-defence? In the name of my race and my people, in the name of humanity, in the name of God, I ask you whether we are to be American citizens, with all the rights and immunities of citizens, or whether we are to be vassals and slaves again? I ask you to tell us whether these things are to go on, so that we may understand now and henceforth what we are to expect.”, July 21, 1876

The REAL U.S. v. Miller et al decision of 1939 - before the U.S. Supreme Court committed overt TREASON against We The People....

United States v. Miller et al., U.S. District Judge Heartsill Ragon, “The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, “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.”, Jan. 3, 1939

The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at....

In D.C. v. Heller the court held:

   "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

   Then the court also states:

   "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

   How can that possibly be the case when We The People's Constitution states in the "restrictive clause" of Amendment II:

   "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

   In Heller the court acknowledges Cruikshank, which states in part:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? [NO, it most certainly has NOT.]. . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms…”

   How is it that the court not understand:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter?"

   And the States are forbidden from exercising 'power' over the right as well:

   "Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right"

   That being the actual FACTS of the matter. WHERE did this 'power' magically appear from that suddenly gave the Federal and State governments the 'power' to 'regulate' or "infringe"?

   It is my firm contention that they both have NO Constitutionally delegated 'power' to do ANYTHING about our right to keep and bear arms. Other than to provide punishment for misuse or abuse of that right. Other than that, they BOTH are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from interferring with the right in ANY way, shape or form. And both our Constitution, and prior [correct] U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirm that contention. The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at. Is that the 'court' is being deliberately deceptive, and aiding and abetting in the infringements.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite: "The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by States, the constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe it . . . The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.”

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

[Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story] “The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them..."

The New Orleans Democrat, New Orleans Mayor Edward Pilsbury, [Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story] “The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them, a power so repugnant to the common principles of justice and civil liberty, lurked under any general grant of legislative authority . . . The people ought not to be presumed to part with rights so vital to their security and well being.” [A MUST READ ARTICLE], Jan. 18, 1876

10-11-1875: Sheriff A.T. Morgan, “However, the negro is a citizen, he is a man. As such he has an equal right with his white neighbor’s to bear arms in his own defence and in defence of his liberties.”

The Daily Clarion, Sheriff A.T. Morgan, “However, the negro is a citizen, he is a man. As such he has an equal right with his white neighbor’s to bear arms in his own defence and in defence of his liberties.”, Oct. 11, 1875

10-3-1875: “the judiciary is often corrupt and owns for its master the political party of the day . . . the corruption of political parties. . . . or the right to bear arms. . . . a preference for those which for centuries so oppressed mankind..."

New Orleans Republican, “the judiciary is often corrupt and owns for its master the political party of the day . . . should abandon the inheritance which the fathers of the republic have bequeathed them, it would seem proper that they inquire whether every effort has been made to preserve those principles pure as when they were first delivered . . . For suppose we grant the corruption of political parties. . . . or the right to bear arms. . . . We have made a text of this article, because it is an open attempt to propagandize a contempt for our own institutions, and a preference for those which for centuries so oppressed mankind that they have been compelled to cross an ocean and hide themselves in a wilderness to escape.”, Oct. 3, 1875