FOUNDERS SELDOM HEARD—AND WHY.

The vast majority of Americans have been taught by the Public Fool System, Leviathan’s historians and religious con-artists, that a group of devoutly religious men, the majority of whom were in total agreement on the tenets of government, got together in 1787 and came up with a constitution that was widely accepted and is exactly what our politicians, judges and law enforcement observe today as they go about their business.

We all have heard of James Madison who bears the title of “Father of the Constitution.” Strange indeed considering the plan of government Madison wrote and transmitted to George Washington in April of 1787 and was presented at the convention as the “Virginia Plan,” was overwhelmingly rejected at that convention. Perhaps Madison deserves the title because the proposal he wrote is almost exactly the form of government we live under today. A system of government where the central government is supreme over all and the States have been relegated to “mere corporations” with little to no say so in the conduct of the central government.

So, who were these virtually unknown founders and what did they have to say about what the constitution, if ratified, would lead to in our country? And more importantly were they correct in their predictions?

First, let us take a look at George Bryan of Pennsylvania. Is he a person that any high school graduate would be able to expound upon as a founder of our country? Would he/she even recognize the name? How many adults do you know who recognize this man? Considering he said the following might be why he is not popularly quoted.

It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of very small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and whatever plan you might, at first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.”

Please remember; the “extensive country” spoken of by George Bryan was only 13 States at the time of his statement. Now, who was correct, Bryan or Madison about what kind of government would issue from our Constitution? Who is more widely known?

Was George Bryan alone in his visionary outlook? Certainly not; he was joined by many more of our “founders” you have possibly never heard about.

There was of course John Dickinson of Delaware. Dickinson had this to say on the subject.

We cannot have a limited monarchy…our situation will not allow it—Repubs. [Republics] are for awhile industrious but finally destroy themselves—they were badly constituted—I dread a consolidation of the States.”

Considering the passive acceptance of signing statements, executive orders and the prosecution of unconstitutional wars, who could deny that we have a full blown monarchy—not just a limited one? Certainly our early Republic was “industrious” until Abraham Lincoln, operating under the powers of a Monarch, completely discarding the Constitution along the way, destroyed the principles of consent of the governed and definitely instituted a “consolidation of the States” with bullets, cannons and bayonets.

So, we have Bryan and Dickinson—were they alone in their predictions?

I’m sure almost everyone is familiar with Theophilus Parsons of Massachusetts. Certainly he is mentioned right along with the Nationalists Madison and Hamilton. Parsons stated:

“Any law…of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state is usurpation and void.” ~1788

Wow. Is there any wonder we don’t hear men like Theophilus quoted in political debates, or cited in a Supreme Court ruling?

The above were joined in their political beliefs by none other than Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina, who stated in his state’s ratification convention:

“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that, consequently, it can never intemeddle where no power is given.” ~1788

Hmmm—try telling this to the Director of the BLM or those who implemented Obamacare!

What about the words of the very well known and often quoted in today’s political landscape, William Richardson Davie, also of North Carolina?

“If there were any seeds in this Constitution which might, one day, produce a consolidation [of the States] it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection, I am so perfectly convinced that so extensive a country as this can never be managed by one consolidated government…if the state governments vanish, the general government must vanish also…the state governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.” ~1788

Well, again, Abraham Lincoln certainly destroyed this concept. Ever wonder why the Republican Party refers to themselves as the “Party of Lincoln?” They sure as hell can’t claim to be that and claim to support our Constitution at the same time!

Let’s move along to another well known authority on constitutional intent and what it would become in the future. You are right—-none other than the man mentioned by all candidates for public office and state and federal judges— Rawlins Lowndes of South Carolina, also in 1788:

The Treaty of Peace [Treaty of Paris 1783] expressly agreed to acknowledge us as free, sovereign, and independent states, which privileges we lived at present in the exercise of. But this new constitution at once swept those privileges away, being sovereign over all; so that this state would dwindle into a mere skeleton of what it was; its legislative powers would be pared down to little more than those now vested in a corporation; and he would value the honor of a seat of the legislature no higher esteem than a seat in the city council.” 

Could it be this country honors the wrong Lincoln? Perhaps we need a political party of Lincoln—founder James Lincoln of South Carolina—who said:

What does this proposed Constitution do? It changes, totally changes, the form of your present government. What have you been contending for these ten years past? Liberty! What is Liberty? The power of governing yourselves. If you adopt this Constitution have you this power? No: you give it into the hands of a set of men who live one thousand miles distant from you. Let the people but once trust their liberties out of their own hands, and what would be the consequence? First, a haughty, imperious aristocracy; and ultimately a tyrannical monarchy.”

Then, of course, there is John Lansing of New York; who, along with Robert Yates, walked out of the Philadelphia Convention because they felt the convention was exceeding the powers that had been granted to them by the people of New York. Wow—what a display of integrity. Perhaps that is why neither one of these men is widely quoted today—either by court historians or the general public. Here is what Lansing had to say about the proposed constitution at the New York State Ratification Convention. Was he right?

“Sir, if you do not give the states the power to protect themselves, if you leave them no other check upon Congress than the power of appointing Senators, they will certainly be overcome.” (Note: the not properly amended 17th Amendment took away that check too.)

Edmund Pendleton of Virginia would state during his state’s ratification debates, while agreeing with Patrick Henry, the following:

“If this be such a government [consolidated] I will confess, with my worthy friend [Henry] that it is inadmissible over such a territory as this country. Let us consider whether it be such a government or not. I should understand a consolidated government to be that which would have the sole and exclusive power, legislative, executive and judicial without any limitation. Is this such a government? Or can it be changed to such a one? It only extends to the general purposes of the Union. It does not intermeddle with the local particular affairs of the state.” 

What we have in our country today is what Edmund Randolph described in the above—a completely consolidated government that claims “sole and exclusive power, legislative, executive and judicial, without any limitation.” That is not the government that was promised to those who ratified the Constitution in 1787-88!

It is the government of Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, John Jay, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W Bush, Barack Obama, the US Supreme Court, federal and state judges, the law enforcement community and everyone who is running for president from both political parties in 2016.

Could it be that is why the names in the above paragraph are recognized by almost everyone, but the names of Bryant, Dickinson, Lowndes, Davie, Parsons, Lansing, Pendleton and James Lincoln are virtually unknown today—especially among politicians, educators, judges and the population as a whole?

The powers of today’s government are stolen powers, taken from the States and the people, and have led to the current state of affairs in our country. We are beyond broke; presidents use unconstitutional powers of the monarch; congress has laid down like a scared puppy, wetting the floor at the feet of the military/industrial/banking complex; our children and grandchildren are taught the laws of the tyrant are sacrosanct; the culture that founded this country is ridiculed and demonized and our government has taken on the mantle of a religion to the masses.

This was not the form of government that was ratified by the founders most have never heard of. Believe me—the fact you don’t know who they are and what they said is no accident.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

WHO WAS RIGHT; PATRICK HENRY OR JOHN MARSHALL?

As I have written on numerous occasions, the true meaning of the Constitution is to be found in what the people in the various State Ratification Conventions were told it meant before they agreed to ratify it as the law of the land.

Also found in those ratification debates are wonderful and concise descriptions of what the Constitution would lead to if the proper safeguards and limitations were not placed on government. No finer example of both promises and predictions can be found than the discussion between Patrick Henry and John Marshall on the 7th of June 1788 in the Virginia State Ratification Convention.

Patrick Henry predicted what roles and actions “federal and state sheriffs” would take under the proposed constitution. John Marshall, a man who would become first Secretary of State under John Adams and then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court until his death 34 years later, challenged Patrick Henry’s predictions and stated that if laws or government actions produced what Henry predicted, those laws and actions would be invalid, unconstitutional, and of no force. Unfortunately for the people of this country, Patrick Henry was totally correct and John Marshall was lying for effect, which history and Marshall’s own actions has proved he did on several occasions.

I bring up this point because of an event that occurred in Albuquerque, New Mexico last Saturday morning at 3:30 am.  A US Marshal Task Force was deployed to a trailer park in Albuquerque, armed with a search warrant with faulty information, to wit, the wrong address of a man wanted for murder. Evidently, they believed a 23 year old man who they found while approaching or searching the wrong address was the man they were looking for. Although there are conflicting statements given by the relatives of the man they approached and the officers themselves, what we do know is the man the Marshals encountered is now dead, shot multiple times; the family’s attorney claims at least once in the back. Again, let me repeat—this was not the man they were searching for; the officers were at the wrong home and it was 3:30 in the morning.

The New Mexico State Police were tasked with the investigation of this shooting/killing and have released information stating the man who is now dead pulled a gun on the Marshals which authorities now claim was stolen.  None of this came as a surprise. Members of the law enforcement community are known to corroborate each other’s accounts of events. No one wearing the badge wants to wind up like Frank Serpico and find themselves without backup somewhere down the road when their lives might be on the line.

Someone in a supervisory position for the Marshals publicly stated the Marshals do not wear body cams because of the “undercover nature of their work.” Folks, 10-12 heavily armed officers wearing body armor arriving at the wrong address at 3:30 in the morning is not an “undercover operation.”

In the interest of fair play it must also be noted, if this shooting was not justified and this man was summarily executed by Marshals not realizing they had the wrong man, a huge monetary settlement will be offered to this man’s family in the very near future. The relative is dead and chances exist someone is about to become very rich. But, whether or not a settlement is made, whether the dead man had a stolen gun or if he was a gangbanger is not the subject of my Rant.

My point is this: if these officers acted criminally, which I believe can be easily proved, will there be any punishment for those actions? Patrick Henry predicted “federal and state sheriffs” would act with impunity, while John Marshall scoffed at the idea.

The first question would be: What legal or moral ground do the officers occupy if they were searching the wrong house and attempting the arrest of the wrong person? If they were at the wrong address, do they have necessary probable cause to search, detain or question the residents of that house? If they do, by default, they have the right to search anyone’s house or car without probable cause. All they have to do is claim they had a warrant for the house down or across the street.

My second question is this: how thorough an investigation was done by these officers in pursuit of the constitutionally mandated “probable cause” if they didn’t really know what house the person they were seeking to apprehend lived in? Was this information obtained by “good old fashioned police work” or did they get a “tip” from a confidential informant they were allowing to skate on another charge?

Question 3: If a person is in their home or on their property and a law enforcement officer comes onto that property by mistake and begins to search or attempts to arrest or detain that person, does that person have the lawful right to resist? Every cop I have ever met or talked to says they don’t. If that is true, we do not have a Constitution and Bill of Rights and we are subject to the rule and domination of people no better than the Nazis or the Soviet Secret Police—and—again—Patrick Henry was right.

Actually, there have been several court cases in which the right to resist an unlawful arrest has been codified. One was in the Indiana Supreme Court in Plummer v State. In this case the court stated:  “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Also the US Supreme Court, citing Plummer in John Bad Elk v US, stated the following:

“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Usually, the first argument heard when I cite the above cases is how old they both are, as if the age of a case somehow diminishes the rights of man. But, my usual answer to this response is, yes both of those cases are decades old, one of them over 100 years old—But—the Constitution and Bill of Rights are older.

Think about it: if a person who is on or in their own property and a member of the government comes to deprive them of their liberty or their life and they do not have the right to defend themselves, we are not a free people no matter how many times we sing the National Anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, if the man in Albuquerque the Marshals were attempting to arrest or detain, when they were on the wrong property and he was not the man they were looking to arrest, at some point attempts to defend his freedom and pulls a firearm (family says he didn’t, police say he did) to protect that freedom, do the police, at the wrong house, arresting the wrong person, have the right to shoot and kill that man?

Now, we all know none of the officers involved will be charged with any crime, after all, they work for the government and their fellow officers have stated the man pulled a gun on them. But, even if he did, do they have the legal or moral right to take his life if they created the situation that led him to defend himself? Even if this man had a stolen gun; even if he was a gangbanger, the officers entering the wrong house with a faulty warrant did not know that when they encountered this person.

Patrick Henry said: “The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed…”

While John Marshall said in response:

“[according to Patrick Henry] the officers of the government will be screened from merited punishment by the federal judiciary. The federal sheriff, say he, will go into a poor man’s house and beat him, or abuse his family, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this? Will such great insults on the people…be allowable? Were a law made to authorize them, it would be void.

Does any gentleman believe this? I’m sure the Randy Weaver family was made to believe it just as were the folks at their church in Waco, Texas. The family of Jose Guerena, shot to death by a SWAT team who killed the wrong man in Tucson, Arizona would believe it. Amanda Greigo of Greely Colorado would believe it as would John Adam’s widow Lorraine of Lebanon Tennessee. Steve and Jennifer Tuppeny of Middletown, Delaware believe it. As a matter of fact incidents like these happen so often there is a website dedicated to such criminal acts which many times  lead to death.

Many times defendant’s (government agencies) in lawsuits that result from such crimes pay out huge amounts of taxpayer money to the families of those killed or abused while the authorities admit to no wrong doing. No one pays anyone millions of dollars if they were innocent—-but it is easy to do if you are allowed to pay with other people’s money. Why are the people acting under the color of authority not responsible for their actions?

Bottom line is this: federal sheriffs arrived at the wrong house at 3:30 am, heavily armed, in large numbers. They encountered a man there they believed to be a man wanted for murder. Under circumstances known only to those who shot and killed the man, that man’s alleged possession of a stolen firearm and possible criminal history was not known to those who did the shooting—when they did the shooting. Having an alleged stolen gun is not a death sentence.

Supporting federal and state sheriffs when they are wrong is vital to the continued corruption of this country and the advancement of the police state. Those who love government (John Marshall supporters) have been presented with all the alleged facts they need to exonerate the officers in this case, facts they readily accept and will continue to do until similar officers commit similar acts on them or those they care for. Then it will be wrong in their minds and they will become Patrick Henry supporters—but—not until.

228 years ago, Patrick Henry predicted how federal and state sheriffs would interact with the people of this country. John Marshall said it would never happen, and if it did, any law authorizing authorities to act in such a manner would be void.  Who was right?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

 

RECONSTRUCTION CONTINUES 150 YEARS LATER

One could certainly believe the below quote could be echoed today in any of the 50 states as we are forced to stand and watch as a totally unconstitutional, tyrannical and oppressive government goes about destroying what little is left of this once proud country.

But what are the chances one would hear these words from a sitting member of Congress today?

“What right have you to expect peace and order in a land whose rulers are lawless felons?  When did a bad government ever fail to produce wickedness and crime?  Do you expect the people to obey the laws when their officials do not?  Do you expect them to love and reverence a government whose policy has made them bankrupt and miserable?  Do you wonder that they become restless, desperate, and disobedient, as they daily behold the fruit of their toil stolen from them in the name of government?  Are you amazed at scenes of violence, outrage, bloodshed, and cruel vengeance, when the executive of a state sets aside the entire administration of justice?  Rather you should be filled with astonishment at the forbearance and moderation you have witnessed…

Had you sown the seeds of kindness and good will, they would long ere this have blossomed into prosperity and peace.  Had you sown the seeds of honor, you would have reaped a golden harvest of contentment and obedience.  Had you extended your charities and your justice to a distressed people, you would have awakened a grateful affection in return.  But as you have planted in hate and nurtured in corruption, so have been the fruits which you have gathered.” ~ Indiana Congressman Daniel Voorhees speech before Congress, 1872, talking of the effects of Reconstruction in the South.

This once great and respected Republic, born of the parents resistance to tyranny and self determination in 1776, died a horrific death at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. The principles of liberty established by patriots with names such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson perished at the hands of tyrants with the names of Abraham Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. On that early Spring day in Virginia, this country’s government morphed from one of “Peace commerce and friendship with all nations: entangling alliances with none” to an empire based on war, death and the theft of private property. Ironically, the first victims of this oppressive government would be its own citizens, in particular those who had insisted on a government of self determination in 1861, just as their ancestors did 84 years earlier.

In a very short time after the end of the War Between the States, the Southern states were subjected to a special brand of tyranny and oppression called Reconstruction. While some historians tell us Reconstruction ended around 1877, in reality this entire country has been under the despot’s heel, a government which embodies the principles and actions visited upon a defeated people in 1865 since that date.

A prime example would be the State of South Carolina during the first 7 years of “Reconstruction.” After 4 terrible years of war and destruction which included a rampage through the state by one William Tecumseh Sherman and his burning, plundering, raping army, South Carolina’s debt stood at 5 million dollars. After 7 years of rule by a Carpetbagger governor from Ohio and the denial of many of her citizens the right to vote or own property, South Carolina’s debt had reached 39 million dollars. Similar stories could be told throughout the other 9 Southern states operating under the tyranny of the Republican leadership in congress.

Does this rapid escalation of debt, denial of basic individual rights, destruction of private property, poverty on a grand scale and militarized police resemble anything like what this country has gone through during the last 16 years? Just as what occurred from 1865-1877, our country has been under the radical rules of reconstruction since the election of 2000, an election that was determined by 9 government employees at the expense of the voting public.

Government agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Game, Environmental Protection Agency and the US Forest Service act exactly as the carpetbagger and scalawag governments did in those 10 Southern States back then. With little to no oversight, these agencies act as judge, jury and executioner. The farmer, rancher and private property owner, especially in the Western states, is treated no differently than the people in the conquered South after the war. These agencies establish regulations which take on the force of law (unconstitutional) prosecute those who stand in their way like the Hammonds in Oregon and then persecute and murder those who protest or resist their crimes, like the Bundy’s, Cox’s and LaVoy Finicum.

After destroying the tenets of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln, Stevens, Sumner and others in their now powerful Republican Party enclaves, set in motion the rape and plunder of those their war had been unable to eliminate. Our government moves on an identical path today in reference to its citizens.

Of course the shills for more and more government, and those holding public office, will point to the moral high ground of  freeing the slaves as justification for the crimes of war and Reconstruction that continue today throughout our country. But this is a specious argument, based on flawed and perverted history.

Widely respected author Gene Dattel who wrote “Cotton and Race in the Making of America” recently wrote an article titled “The Untold Story of Reconstruction.” This is a must read article for those who truly seek the truths of history, especially of the crimes visited on the people of the South and the real “racism’ behind those who perpetrated and prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression. Below is an excerpt of Dattel’s article illustrating the “racism” of those in the North before the war.

“Even though blacks represented less than 2% of the population in the Northern states, as compared to 40% in the Confederate states, most white Northerners wanted blacks concentrated in the South. As Connecticut was freeing its slaves fifty years before the war, Yale President Timothy Dwight wrote ‘[free blacks]…are generally neither able, nor inclined, to make their freedom a blessing. When they first become free, they are turned out into the world…fitted to make them only nuisances to society…[where] they waste much of what they earn…[and] are left as miserable victims to sloth…poverty, ignorance and vice.’ Nearly sixty years later Connecticut voted against the Fifteenth Amendment, that granted male blacks the right to vote.” (emphasis added)

Dattel goes on to point out the hypocrisy of people today by stating Yale University students want to change the name of the John Calhoun residential college because of “racism” associated with Calhoun but say nothing of the Timothy Dwight residential college, when it was Dwight who stated “free blacks” were “nuisances to society” and “victims to sloth, poverty, ignorance and vice.”

Especially enlightening in Dattel’s presentation was his quote from the “anti-slavery” Chicago Tribune when it said “The greatest ally of the slaveholder…is the apprehension…that if slaves were liberated, they would become roaming, vicious, vagrants; that they would overrun the North.”

Please consider the phrase “roaming, vicious, vagrants” when you take the time to look at the up-to-the-minute statistics of murder and mayhem in the streets of Chicago at www.heyjackass.com where the overwhelming majority of victims and perpetrators are black.

Yes, the crimes of our government officials and agencies in places like Bunkerville, Nevada and Bend Oregon are similar to those perpetrated on the citizens of the South during Reconstruction, just as the black-on-black crimes in cities like Chicago, Flint, East Saint Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham and others can be traced back to the same government policies.

At the outset of what Thomas Jonathan Jackson (Stonewall) referred to as “Our Second War for Independence,” Jackson, in a conversation with Cavalry leader JEB Stuart, stated the following:

If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property; it is the prelude to Anarchy, infidelity, the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, the banks, the factories…”

Confederate General Patrick Cleburne, known as Stonewall of the West, stated this about effects of a Union victory:

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused a pardon after the war because he said it would be an “admission of guilt.” The leaders of Reconstruction in the North refused to bring Davis to trial because they feared the outcome would reveal the tremendous and traitorous crimes that had been visited on the people of the South.

Those crimes involving the destruction of the rights of self-determination and individual liberty, visited on the people of the South from 1861-1877, are today being visited on the entire country. Yes, we are all still living under the policies of Reconstruction.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

 

IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS; IT IS THE DEATH OF LIBERTY

 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…” Hosea 4:6

Yesterday, I received an email touting the defense of our Constitution by recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The first paragraph went on to sing the praises of Scalia although no evidence of this support was found in the body of the email. The author of this piece then claimed Scalia to be the greatest person to ever wear the black robe, with the possible exception of John Marshall.

The author of this email did remark with praise on Scalia’s defense of our Second Amendment Rights. Scalia, in D.C. v. Heller, did confirm the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and not a collective one. This would place Scalia in the “Captain Obvious” category for sure, along with the other 4 members of the court who voted in support. 2A supporters naturally cheered wildly, not reading the entire decision. Scalia also stated these rights were subject to “reasonable restrictions” by federal and state governments.

With the two words “reasonable restrictions,” Scalia and his cronies set the Constitution and Bill of Rights on its head. Not to be found in any of the organic documents of this country does it state individual rights are subject to restrictions by the government whose primary job is to protect those rights, not restrict them. What Scalia did with this declaration was to place all of our Individual Rights as listed in the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights subject to reasonable restrictions by people with the wherewithal (money) to win an election. I can assure you what you and I would deem “reasonable” would vary differently from the same definition of the word from Obama, Hillary, McCain, Romney, Bernie or Loretta Lynch. But, it is not our definition that would hold the weight of the law according to Scalia; it would be the definition arrived at by of one of the above, or some other sleazy politician.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the founding era of this country would know that almost without exception, all discussions of what would become our Second Amendment were conducted in concert with discussions of what our founders feared would be the primary instrument of tyranny: a standing army. Our founders knew well any standing army and the federal or state sheriffs mentioned by Patrick Henry would be under the dominion or control of government officials. For this reason, our founders guaranteed to the people of this country a right to be armed in order to protect themselves from the standing army, federal and state sheriffs. Scalia, if he had any knowledge of the founders, knew this. He also knew to allow those who would be in charge of that standing army to set restrictions on the rights of the people to protect themselves from that selfsame government was to completely ignore the intent of our founders.

Before a standing army can rule; the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~Noah Webster

The complete theory stated by Noah Webster above has been neutered by “reasonable restrictions” instituted by our government since the founding of this country. The “whole body of the people” have been virtually disarmed with reasonable restrictions. The people are denied the right to have weapons equal to those of the current standing armies in this country. Even the local police have arms that previous “reasonable restrictions” have denied to the individual.

When LaVoy Finicum exited his truck on that fateful day in Oregon, he was outnumbered and outgunned and had already been fired upon by members of our governments federal and state sheriffs. The same federal and state sheriffs Patrick Henry had mentioned in the Virginia Ratification Convention.

“The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: Our State Sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our Legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people…”

Justice Antonin Scalia was not an instrument of Freedom and Liberty; he was not a constitutionalist, strict constructionist or defender of the Bill of Rights; he was an instrument of government, a shill for the oppressors and tyrants. He publicly stated our inalienable rights were subject to “reasonable restrictions” by the very government our founders intended the people to be armed to protect themselves from.

Those so-called “conservatives’ who are worshiping at the feet of the tyrant with their countless accolades for Scalia are despicable and ignorant of what our founders intended this Republic to be. Again, ignorance is not bliss; it is the “loss of free and responsible government on this continent.” It is the triumph of the banks and the military/industrial/congressional/judicial complex over the Creator-granted rights of the individual.

To further illustrate this gross ignorance, the comparison of Scalia with Chief Justice John Marshall must be examined. In his 34 years on the Supreme Court, John Marshall probably did more to destroy the intent of our founders in the formation of a Republic than any other figure in history.

It all began with Marbury v. Madison. First of all, Marshall, like Scalia, refused to recuse himself from court proceedings in which he had a conflict of interest. Marshall was Secretary of State when then President John Adams appointed Marbury to a Justice of the Peace position near the end of his presidential term. As Secretary of State, it was Marshall’s duty to deliver the appointment to Marbury, a task which Marshall failed to complete. When Marbury learned of this appointment after Jefferson had been sworn in as president, with Madison as his Secretary of State, Marbury sued Madison for this appointment. By this time Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall ruled the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case and that should have ended it. But, Marshall used this opportunity to establish the scourge of freedom “judicial review.”

Marshall had been a delegate to the Virginia Ratification Convention and had repeatedly heard fellow delegates Edmund Randolph and George Nicholas state the only powers the federal government possessed were those that had been “expressly delegated” to it. Marshall, at this convention, promised the federal courts would never interfere in the laws of the states. Marshall also challenged Patrick Henry’s prediction of what Henry referred to as “federal and state sheriffs.”

“[According to Henry] the officers of the government will be screened from merited punishment by the federal judiciary. The federal sheriff, says he, will go into a poor man’s house and beat him, or abuse his family, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this? Is it necessary that the officers will commit a trespass of the property or persons of those with whom they are to transact business? Will such great insults on the people…be allowable? Were a law made to authorize them, it would be void.” (Emphasis mine)

In Marbury v Madison, John Marshall amended the Constitution from the bench and set up a precedent that has continually been used to destroy the Republic our founders created. Our Constitution requires an amendment to alter or change it. Marshall did it repeatedly from the bench over his 34 year tenure, until, like Scalia, he died in office at the age of 79.

In McCulloch v Maryland, Marshall again amended the Constitution by ruling against Maryland’s taxation of the National Bank. [currently known as the Federal Reserve] Maryland correctly claimed there was nothing in the Constitution which gave the government the right to establish a national bank. Marshall agreed, but then reiterated his mentor Alexander Hamilton’s claim the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I Section 8 clause 18) gave the government that power. This, after being a part of the ratification convention in which the Anti-federalists were repeatedly guaranteed only the “expressly delegated” powers granted the government would be allowed. During this trial, Marshall lectured the attorney for Maryland, Luther Martin as to what the founders had intended at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Martin was there as a delegate, Marshall was not. Arrogance personified.

In Cohens v Virginia, Marshall proved himself to be a liar of epic proportions when he declared the federal courts had the right to review state cases, the exact thing he, himself, had promised would never happen during the Virginia Ratification Convention. This decision too amended the Constitution from the bench.

Scalia amended the Constitution with his “subject to reasonable restrictions” clause in D.C. v. Heller, for there is nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as ratified that gives the federal government the right to restrict ownership of firearms. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the states to restrict the powers of the federal government, not to give them more. Scalia had to know this, but his allegiance to a strong central government directed his actions, not his oath to uphold and defend.

Yes, Scalia and Marshall were very much alike—both could have cared less about the restrictions of our Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights on their actions. The real problem for this country is: all too many see them as heroes instead of the tyrants they were.

Friends, Neocons and Progressives, lend me your ears. I come to bury Scalia and Marshall, not to praise them. The evil that men do live after them, the good is often interred with their bones…” With all due apologies to Billy Shakespeare

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

 

THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ON THE NEWS 2/20/16

For the past week I have been working on several different Rants but my mind kept reverting back to the news stories of each day. To that end I decided to compose this Rant on my thoughts on recent news.

THE QUESTIONABLE DEATH OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

The unexpected death of Antonin Scalia in a remote part of Texas has created among those who discount “conspiracy theories” by rote to suddenly believe the highly esteemed Justice died at the hands of perpetrators unknown. Most of these people have scoffed at the mountains of evidence that contradict the government’s version of events of 9/11, yet they proudly tout their reasons for believing Scalia was murdered, ignoring of course Scalia’s family requested no autopsy and his oldest son, Eugene, called the conspiracy theories, “hurtful.”

First of all, despite the accolades from both sides of the aisle, Scalia was by no measure a “strict constructionist” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, to refer to him as a constitutionalist is to blaspheme many of our founders, especially those known as the Anti-Federalists.

Scalia, in private writings, stated Secession and Nullification to be unconstitutional. He stated the issue of Secession was settled, not by constitutional means or legal precedent, but by force, coercion and violence: the Civil War. He also stated confirmation of his position could be found in the Pledge of Allegiance, thus: “one nation indivisible.” Was Scalia, like most Americans, ignorant of the fact the pledge was written by an avowed Socialist? Was he also unaware of the difference between a national form of government and a Republic (federal) as cited by Gouverneur Morris on May 30th, 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation…” 

The Pledge of Allegiance contradicts itself, as most socialist renderings do, when it states “and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible.” As Morris stated, a federal form of government (Republic) rests on the “good faith of the parties” and is not a “complete and compulsive operation” as is required of a national form of government. In his stated opinion on Secession, Scalia sided against the founders and for a strong centralized government and a “compulsive” government, as did Abraham Lincoln and many other supporters of a nationalist government. As further proof, Scalia sided with none other than Adolf Hitler who commended Lincoln for his “nationalist” approach in destroying the states in his magnum opus, Mein Kampf.

“[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.” ~ Mein Kampf, p. 566

On the above point, Hitler is supported by Abraham Lincoln, Justice Joseph Story, Senator Daniel Webster and Antonin Scalia while the Anti-federalists and the tenets of the 9th and 10th Amendments are refuted/ignored.

Absent from most accounts of Scalia’s “accomplishments” on the court was his role in perverting the electoral process when the court decided for the American voter who would be president in 2001. Hardly anyone mentions that Scalia’s long time friendship with Dick Cheney should have led to Scalia’s recusal in this case, a case which should have never been heard by the high court.  Also not mentioned is Scalia’s support of keeping documents that could have led to the indictment of Cheney on issues reference Cheney’s “Energy Task Force” and how this task force related to the invasion of Iraq. Many have forgotten Scalia and Cheney took a “duck hunting trip” while this case was before the Supreme Court. What is that old axiom about avoiding the appearance of impropriety? Yet, Scalia adamantly refused to recuse himself from this case.

Few would even remember Scalia’s turning the Supreme Court hearing on the release of documents which could have proven Clinton insider and confidant Vince Foster did not commit suicide into an Evening at the Improv, cracking joke after joke about conspiracy theories and theorists while failing to ask any relevant question about the obvious conflict between the statement of EMT’s who recovered the body and the official medical report concerning the wounds to Foster’s body.

CAMPAIGN NEWS

While I believe from all facts available that Donald Trump has very little knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the very thing he would take a sacred oath to uphold and defend should he prevail, and would be not that much different than any of his opponents, I absolutely love what he is doing to the Republican Party. The actions of the party faithful lead me to think of the title “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”

When looking at politics on any level, a true “Declarationist,” a term recently coined by a wonderful lady in Arkansas who has tired of the term “conservative” and seeks instead allegiance to the tenets of our Declaration of Independence, the vital question that must be asked is this: when a politician states a position, did they arrive at that position using the rule of morality, the Constitution or the rule of politics? We constantly see politicians on the national stage change their position on the issues when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

So-called “conservatives,” who supported Willard Romney in 2012, refuse to acknowledge many of Romney’s political vacillations during his career. He was pro-choice, then he was pro-life; he was pro Second Amendment when running for prez but signed an assault weapons ban into law while governor of Massachusetts. He was against Obamacare but had originated similar legislation known as “Romneycare,” also in Massachusetts. Did these vacillations occur because of moral decisions or political ones?

In 2008, Republican John McCain, again supported by a great majority of “conservatives,” was endorsed by the NRA while the the group Gun Owners of America gave McCain an F-minus grade on 2A issues. So-called “conservatives” don’t seem to care that McCain had accepted funding from the George Soros group “Open Society Institute” and Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s political group “Tides Foundation.” Of course, also forgotten by conservatives, is McCain’s move to “close the gun show loophole” which would have required every person attending a gun show to pass a background check whether or not they purchased anything.

Intelligent folks must ask the question of McCain and the NRA if their decisions were based on moral or constitutional grounds, or political ones. Then, certainly, we must pose that same question to all the “conservatives” who voted for McCain and Romney or continued their membership in the NRA when that group supported a political candidate with an F-minus rating, or had signed an assault weapons bill into law. The NRA also supported Harry Reid. We all know that decision was made on moral grounds.

SHOULD APPLE BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A BACKDOOR TO THE FEDS

The federal government wants Apple to provide access to an alleged terrorist’s Apple phone to assist with their investigation. Representatives of the central state, including retired police and federal agents, have been all over the mainstream media citing reason after reason why Apple should provide access to this phone. Of course the government claims they would not use that access to look into any other person’s Apple devices. And we all know the government never lies.

If someone finds your Apple device and tries to access content by randomly typing in passwords, after the tenth unsuccessful attempt the phone erases all content. The content could only be recovered by the owner of that device. The government actually expects the people to believe they would never exceed the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. After all, their record is so squeaky clean when it comes to protecting our individual rights. Just ask Edward Snowden and a plethora of other whistle blowers who revealed government crimes, many of whom are serving long prison sentences. Were there not legions of so-called conservatives railing for Snowden’s arrest? Did they base their beliefs on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, morality or did they chose the political expedient? Do “conservatives” believe it is perfectly legitimate for the government to exceed the limits of our Constitution and Bill of Rights if it meets their political approval? Really???? And how does that differ from a progressive liberal?

CARNAGE ON THE STREETS OF CHICAGO—BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER

Now, I must confess, I did not hear this on the news. I had to look up the statistics for myself. (Up to the minute statistics can be found at www.heyjackass.com) Currently, every two hours and fifty one minutes someone is shot on the streets of Chicago and every thirteen hours and five minutes someone is shot and killed. So far this month 24 people have been shot and killed; 94 have been shot and wounded and there have been 33 total homicides. Weapons of choice in the 9 murders other than a firearm consists of knives, vehicles and a frying pan. So far this year 77 have been shot and killed; 340 people have been shot and wounded and there have been 90 homicides. Where is the national coverage of this carnage? Is the decision by politicians, journalists, and other government officials based on morality or political expediency? No need to answer—we all know the truth.

By the way, there have been no requests to Apple or other carriers by our government to provide access to the electronic devises of any victims or assailants in these crimes. Do Black lives not matter to them?

Of those whose lives have come to a violent end in Chicago so far this month, 61 are Black; 22 are Hispanics and 3 are listed as “White/Other.” Of the known assailants, 10 are Black, 1 is Hispanic and one death was by Police. 74 of those murders are currently unsolved, so the race of the assailant is unknown.

All of this has occurred without any major media coverage while Black sportswriters have been attacking Peyton Manning as a privileged White man, evidently because he conducted himself differently than did Cam Newton in a news conference after losing a Super Bowl. Go figure. America today has become a cesspool of political nonsense while moral decisions are as rare as a barnyard egg layer with teeth.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

HOW ABOUT THAT OATH?

(*Author’s Note: Here we are in February and the elections are heating up. Without a doubt the question that should be the centerpiece of any political debate will never be mentioned—-why? Because to explore this area would be to expose the candidates for what they are: hand puppets who repeat canned dialogue, as was seen with Marco Rubio, who will take their marching orders from the power cabal that has been running this country at least since 1947. 

Immediately after being elected, the victorious candidate will take a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.” If these elected officials were to follow their oath, the office holder would be immediately obligated to charge himself/herself, the majority of politicians and elected and appointed officials throughout our country with treason. The Oath is the only enforceable mechanism there is in our form of government. Once the Constitution is violated, the elected or appointed official immediately becomes a domestic enemy to freedom and Liberty and a violator of a Sacred Oath.)

 

SWEARING AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HOW IT WORKS.

‘Tis not the many oaths that makes the truth, but the plain single vow that is vow’d true.” William Shakespeare, All’s Well That Ends Well

Without a doubt, the most overlooked and abused object during an election season is the oath of office. When was the last time you heard the oath to uphold and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights mentioned in a political debate, on the evening news or by any of the so-called pundits in the media?

In today’s world one must exhibit their ability to perform the job they have applied for, usually in the form of a test or examination; a driver’s license; a teaching certification; license to practice medicine; contractor’s license; POST certification; a concealed carry permit and many more. All these require a working knowledge of the job they have applied for or are being employed to do and some form of examination or test to demonstrate knowledge and application of the principals involved.  Yet, for the literally hundreds of thousands of politicians, public officials, law enforcement personnel and government bureaucrats, there is no examination given on what is the most important and sometimes the only duties of their jobs.

In the Oath of Office taken by politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel and other so-called public servants, the primary object which requires that oath is the Constitutions of the United States and the State in which they perform their duties. No one taking this sacred oath should be allowed to assume any job or position if they cannot demonstrate a working knowledge of the single most important aspect of their job.

Would you be upset if you discovered the doctor who was about to perform life-threatening surgery on your child had never passed any test or examination of knowledge and/or proficiency of the procedure they were about to perform? How safe would you feel knowing the pilot of the plane you are about to board for a cross country flight had never actually flown a plane before, but, had taken an oath claiming they knew how? How secure would you be if you were about to make your first skydiving jump from 10,000ft and was told the person who packed your chute had never packed a chute before and had no prior knowledge of how to do it correctly but was a member of the same political party as you?

But these are life and death situations, you say! Need I remind you of the words from our Declaration of Independence?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Emphasis added)

Trusting those we elect to adhere jealously to their sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States and the State Constitution where they reside, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, while not knowing or caring if they have any knowledge of those documents has led to a tyrannical, out of control, totally centralized, socialist government. A government which has created so much debt our children, grand-children and great grandchildren will be virtual slaves to those who hold that debt.

In 1863, then Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, stated to a group who were questioning the ever rising war debt and how it would be repaid, “The very land of this country, every inch of soil, is collateral on that debt.” When you look around and see the gradual confiscation of land and natural resources by bureaucratic agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service, along with mortgage based securities used to shore up the stock market and guarantee the billions of dollars in fiat money the Federal Reserve sinks into the market each month, perhaps you can understand the words of Secretary Chase and the purpose of Section IV in the never properly ratified 14th Amendment which states:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.”

Simply stated, the land you think you own, in many cases putting your blood, sweat, tears and life’s savings into, is listed as collateral for our ever increasing national debt along with our Public Lands. We got there by not caring if those we elect know anything of the objects of their sacred oaths of office.

During the War for Southern Independence, the oath morphed into an oath of allegiance to government rather than to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is how the oath is interpreted by the vast majority of our elected officials and bureaucrats today, much to the detriment of the actual purpose of that oath.

Once people believe their sacred oath is to the government, as opposed to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they, by default, believe any and all actions of the government are legitimate and must be followed. These actions are most often referred to as “laws” or “regulations.” Their lack of knowledge is compounded when they mistakenly believe that any law or regulation passed by that government is the supreme law of the land; an idea that is often repeated by those who intentionally bastardize Article VI Section 2 of our Constitution to their own selfish intentions and agendas.

Our Founders like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and writers like Frederic Bastiat saw and understood how tyrants would pervert the law and regulations to their own profit and beliefs. Jefferson said of Rightful Liberty:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Emphasis mine)

And here Bastiat explains the perversion of law:

“…law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.” (Emphasis mine)

Please note that in the oaths taken by the President, members of Congress, Sheriff’s in every county of every state and many other offices which require an oath to our US and State Constitutions, there is no oath to uphold or defend the law.  Remember Jefferson’s admonition that the law “is often but the tyrant’s will.”

Martin Luther King Jr. also alluded to the perversion of law.

“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany…” ~Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from the Birmingham Jail

It is essential to Rightful Liberty that everyone who takes a sacred oath to our Constitutions has a working knowledge of those documents; they should all be held accountable and each one has an equal obligation to that oath. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s oath is no more significant or important than a local Deputy Sheriff or City Police Officer.

Working correctly and in concert, those oaths would protect the Rightful Liberty of everyone at each level.

  • At the point of contact, each member of law enforcement should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the individual rights of those whom they serve.
  • Should the officer violate the rights of the individual, the District Attorney who prosecutes the case has the power to dismiss such cases where the rights of the citizens are violated. Knowledge of the limits placed on government by our constitution rights is critical at this level.
  • As prescribed by our Bill of Rights, (Amendment V) the case should then be placed in the hands of an independent Grand Jury to determine the constitutionality of the law and the circumstances of arrest and/or the validity of warrants.
  • Should the violation of rights escape the first two stages, then a judge with a working knowledge of the Natural Laws mentioned in our Declaration of Independence would have it within their power to dismiss the charges or charge the officers involved with violating their oaths if applicable.
  • Should the first three checkpoints fail then it is of vital importance those who sit on juries be well versed in our US and State Constitutions. At no time should they be dependent on the Judge or the DA to explain to them the law and whether that law is indeed constitutional. This fifth step places the determination of constitutionality back in the hands of the people where it belongs.

No Oath or Vow in itself contains the establishment of truth. That oath is a testimony of the swearer’s intent to honor their word in fulfillment of that promise. If they have little to no knowledge of that which they swear to do, how will they know they have broken their sacred oath and how will “we the people” know if we also do not have that knowledge?

A strict adherence to the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights would not provide a perfect social environment, but it would create a society that honors Rightful Liberty and a government that does not saddle our posterity with a smothering debt they can never hope to pay.

The next time you visit with your children or grandchildren, be sure and explain to them how their futures are indeed grim, with very little hope for prosperity, because you did not take the time to understand your obligations as a citizen and your propensity to elect people because they called themselves this or that or because they belonged to your chosen party without a passing thought to strict adherence to their Sacred Oaths.

When a candidate tells you it is their duty to enforce any and all laws passed in this country—-be afraid—be very afraid. They are admitting publicly the Sacred Oath they will take means nothing and at some point in time they will violate your rights, seize your property, or perhaps shoot you or members of your family with impunity.

In Rightful Rebel Liberty

THE SPIRIT OF FREEDOM

“It is not the firearm in the hands of the Patriot the tyrant fears, it is the spirit of the person who possesses that firearm.”

The death of the spirit is the price of progress.” ~ Eric Voegelin

The spirit of freedom is a hard thing to explain to anyone who has never felt the inner fire, the yearning to live his or her life according to their own wishes without interference of others whose main objectives in life are money and power over others.

This spirit does not come in small doses, a person cannot be just a little bit free; one either has the love of freedom to full measure or they have it not at all. I once heard a man define a religious zealot as someone who loves God more than others. That self same logic applies to the spirit of freedom; a zealot for liberty loves it more than the person who criticizes that personal trait in others. They love it more than those who seek public office for the sole purpose of exercising dominion and control over others and the enjoyment of the trappings of power.

People who see compromises on liberty and freedom as acceptable and necessary are those who attack others they see who are unwilling to compromise as they do. The very fact they do not have the courage to stand against the majority eats at their very consciousness when they see it exhibited in others. Rather than aspire to that level of commitment to freedom, they chose instead to attack those who have more courage than they, and in doing so lend aid and comfort to tyrants.

Many are those who outwardly proclaim their allegiance to freedom principles strictly for the purpose of personal recognition or monetary gain. Some are just useful idiots while others are members of what is known as controlled opposition. The purpose of controlled opposition is to give hope to many, espousing the words of freedom while acting as pied pipers, subverting the principles of freedom while assisting the goals of the tyrant.

Some in the controlled opposition class are allowed to become quite wealthy as a reward for their service to tyranny. These traitors are easily spotted for they achieve fame and fortune through affiliation with the mainstream media which is owned and controlled by the tyrants. FAUX News is full of them, while others can be found at Westwood One.

Examine with me if you will a time-warp scenario. A group of Patriots, in order to escape the prying eyes and attention of the government, moved to a building in which they could discuss and plan for their actions to combat the tyranny of their government. It is the 23rd of March. Over 120 have gathered to discuss possible courses of action.

During this meeting, one Patriot in particular refers to the formation of militias in order to “secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened.”  A local minister in attendance would describe this Patriot as having “an unearthly fire burning in his eye,” and from the beginning of his speech he intended to “speak forth his sentiments freely.”

This Patriot, aware that armed federal forces acting at the request of the governor were being formed against him and the others present, asked concerning the purpose of those forces, “Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love?” Has our [government] any enemy in this area to call for such an accumulation of force. No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other.”

 This Patriot’s tone then began to assume a more passionate edge. The aforementioned minister in attendance said, “Excitement began to play more and more on his features. The tendons of his neck stood out white and rigid like whipcords.”

The Patriot continued, “Our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt, from the foot of the throne…”

Continuing with his presentation appealing to the others present as to what course they should take considering all the invasions on their Creator given rights by their government, he finally said he really didn’t care what other’s decided, his course of action was set.

One of those still faithful to the government who was in attendance, characterized the Patriot’s words as “infamously insolent.” I’m sure his thoughts were, how dare anyone challenge the power of the standing government, this is out and out treason. Had this Patriot been able to have heard the shill for the government’s thoughts he would have responded thusly, “If this be treason, let’s make the most of it.”

What if the government forces had responded to this meeting with overwhelming force? What if SWAT teams had been deployed and hundreds upon hundreds of federal sheriff’s would have surrounded the building and demanded immediate surrender? What if those inside, minus the government agents provocateur, had refused to surrender? Would they have been shot with their hands in the air when they exited the building? Would the building have been riddled with gunfire? Would those who survived been incarcerated and held without bond? Would they have been sentenced to long prison terms by federal judges? After all, the leader of the government at that time accused those who were clamoring for freedom and liberty of possessing a “daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to the law.”

Had violence occurred, how would the media have handled it? Would it have been reported those inside were being charged with “conspiracy to impede officers of the government from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation and threats?” From what was said by the Patriot who spoke, this obviously could have been the charges leveled against at least him, if not everyone in attendance

Who were these 120 people inside this building listening to the impassioned words of one Patriot in particular? They certainly proposed militias to protect the people from intrusions on their God-given rights by the political powers of the day. They questioned the authority of the government and condemned the outright denial of liberty and freedom.

Was this building the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Was it a church in Waco, Texas called a compound by government authorities to sway popular opinion? No, it was St. John’s Church in Richmond Virginia on March 23rd, 1775. Those in attendance were not Ammon Bundy, LaVoy Finicum, Shawna Cox or others. Those in attendance in St. John’s Church were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph and several others who would later sign the Declaration of Independence. Of course the outspoken Patriot was Patrick Henry.

It is absolutely astounding the similarities between that meeting in Saint John’s Church in 1775 and those who went to Oregon to protest the illegal acts of the government and their intrusions on the rights of citizens of this country.

Amazing also are the similarities of the words used by both sides. Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum both spoke frequently of the rights of the people and the tyranny of the government, just as Patrick Henry had done almost 241 years earlier. Remarkable also are the words of the supposed leaders of government. How many times did we hear those in power, their shills in the media and so-called members of the patriot community speak of the Bundy’s, and other occupiers “daring spirit of resistance and disobedience of the law” just as King George III had said of Washington, Jefferson, Henry and others?

King George III mentioned that daring spirit of resistance which is the same as the spirit of freedom mentioned in the beginning of my Rant. Tyrants fear this spirit more than any other thing in existence, for that spirit is much more dangerous to them than guns, bullets, elections or millions of Tea Party Republicans.

Had the state and federal government forces present in Oregon over the past two months been present in Richmond Virginia in March of 1775, Washington, Jefferson, Henry and others may have been shot with their hands up or reaching for a phantom gun—if not they certainly would be in jail facing years in prison for daring to challenge the government of the day.

“Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [government] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.” ~Declaration of Independence

Less than two months after the meeting in Saint John’s Church, 75 men possessing the spirit of resistance to tyranny stood against overwhelming numbers on the Green in Lexington. Thus began the American Revolution with the “shot heard round the world.”

How many today have that unquenchable spirit for Freedom and Liberty and the daring spirit of resistance on display by those in Saint John’s Church and those in Oregon? True Freedom and Rightful Liberty depend on those who do.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

IT’S NOT THE PEOPLE, IT’S THE MACHINE

(*Author’s note: we have moved into what is often referred to as the election cycle. Billions of dollars will be spent with the majority going into the coffers of the media which works diligently to influence the results of elections. That which they cannot influence is left to the electronic voting machines and crooked caucuses such as the one in Iowa. Regardless of who is elected, just as Professor Carroll Quigley stated in his seminal work Tragedy and Hope, we can throw the rascals out as frequently as we wish but it will not lead to any “profound or extensive shift in policy.” 

Mark Twain said If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” and H.L. Mencken said “Every election is sort of advance auction on stolen goods.” Both were absolutely correct but Americans consistently prove Einstein was correct when he defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” 

Bottom line is this: Our country is led and dominated by a criminal cabal which moves everyday to destroy individual freedom and liberty, to which an insane populace elects new members on a regular basis.)

IT’S NOT THE PEOPLE, IT’S THE MACHINE

“Government is an agency of force which can and must be employed against every deviationist. And this is only to say again that the government must oppose the individual. Therefore the “good” man in government is like a priest with a machine gun. The mechanism does the harm. The man who operates it merely pulls the trigger.” ~Robert Lefevre

 

Every two years in this country there exists a mania we call elections where those involved in the electoral process work endless hours and spends billions of dollars in an effort to put “good” men/women into elected offices. This, each person believes, will improve/change the government apparatus and everyone will be better served. This is analogous to believing that if one could place the right person on my Harley it would perform the tasks of a dump truck. The machine (government) can only accomplish that which it was designed to do: all governments, in their evolutionary process, eventually turn on their progenitors; the machine eventually rules the individual, no matter what “safeguards” have been put in place.

Nowhere is that more evident than where we are today in this country. No matter who is elected to operate the machine, the machine continues in its quest to destroy all it considers adversarial to the goal of total control and domination.

The writings of LeFevre tell us that man has long been fascinated by the phenomenon of the government apparatus and seeks to rationalize the continued corruption with one of two explanations. Either the people elected to run the machine were/are evil, or if the proper “safeguards” had been installed, “they would have escaped the evil their government was busily engaged in inflicting upon them.” I believe this perfectly describes our present dilemma, for those who voted for Obama wonder at how the campaign promises he made have been forgotten or the changes made were not what they expected. The opposition believes Obama to be an evil person.

No matter how evil a person might be, as an individual they are unable to visit such tremendous evil on the world without the power government provides. In turn, electing “good” people to run a gangster device will never deliver the hoped for product. LeFevre asks the question: “…then how does it happen that so many administrations of good men have been able to do so many evil and harmful things to their subjects?” As a country, we widely differ on exactly what administration has been good or bad. There are millions who believed George W. Bush to have been a “good” president, while millions believe Obama to be accomplishing “good” things, yet both have visited tremendous evil on the world, including their own supporters.

Individuals in this country have less freedom, are more and more controlled and coerced by government and continue to be robbed of the fruits of their labor, yet all this has occurred under the administrations of the “best” our country has to offer each election cycle, from both sides of the political spectrum.

Isabel Patterson in her book, The God of the Machine, provides what she believes to be the answer. “…What good does it do to have a saint of every conceivable virtue operating a guillotine? Personally, the man may be above reproach. He may have the highest of morals and ethics. He may be imbued with a passion for doing good. But the mechanism he is hired to operate cuts off heads. He may dislike to cut off heads. He may weep with true sorrow whenever a head falls into the basket. But he was hired to pull the rope that lets the knife drop. And when it comes down, off comes the head. That is the way the tool works.”

 

This methodology is, in part, accomplished with government’s admonishment there is a higher purpose in life than being an individual. Ironically, this rebuke always comes around to serving the machine. John F. Kennedy said to “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” It was not the country we were being asked to put foremost in our lives, but the machine. The government and its willing shills in the media and academia have been able to cloud the difference between the country and the government so that in the minds of many, they are inseparable. That is why, in today’s world, all who oppose the machine have been deemed “domestic terrorists.” The spirit of individuality, or just wanting to be left alone, cannot be allowed to flourish, but must always be seen as the enemy and therefore destroyed.

People create government to control that which they fear. The machine enjoys its continued growth and strength to the spirit of fear among the people. Different people fear different things; in a great number of instances that fear is of people who think or act differently or ideas with which they disagree. The machine therefore evolves into a mechanism that seeks control over everyone and everything. Limited government is an illusion. Safeguards put in place to limit the scope and range of government are gradually eliminated as more fearful entities appear, or are created, requiring continued growth of the machine. Franklin was correct; trading freedom for security leaves the people with neither. The constant meddling in the affairs of other countries produces enemies of the machine and are converted into objects of fear for the people. Here we have the vicious cycle; more enemies require a larger and more powerful machine, which produces more and more enemies to fear.

Individualism and the wish to just be left alone by those who do not wish to control others is the mortal enemy of the machine. If the individual can exist without this desire to control others or seek power over them, the need for the machine no longer exists. The government machine’s survival depends on convincing the people that the anointed among them, selected during the electoral process, can indeed take the government back to a less intrusive and more friendly status. Throughout our history, this has never happened.

People decide to become involved in government for basically two reasons. They either want the power and control over others and the wealth that brings, or they believe by becoming involved in government they can limit the power of the machine. These folks, no matter how well intentioned, become the “priest with a machine gun.” The machine continues to control and destroy the lives of others, while the “good” person in government pulls the trigger.

The machine will continue to create items of fear for the people. The fear of an economy going bad brings on illegal bailouts and controls of the economy that have the opposite effect intended and provide untold riches to supporters of the machine. This creates more fear among the people and enlarges the machine. The fear of being unable to pay for needed medical care creates fear that could give the government vast control over the people and their remaining money. The fear of the dreaded Communist, Muslim or person of different skin pigmentation, creates fear in the people and grows the machine’s arm of oppression: the military, law enforcement and the new scourge of private contractors. The fear of a pandemic in the form of some new exotic disease (created in a laboratory) brings the ability to control the masses with unneeded and potentially harmful forced vaccinations. When the machine seeks unparalleled growth, it creates false flag events to terrorize the population, bringing on new and more terrible laws and regulations, again to eliminate its greatest threat, the individual.

 

The machine has legions of faithful followers who willingly steal, intimidate and even kill for their paychecks, monies stolen by the machine from the production of their victims through intimidation and threat. These people are nothing but whores who care not for any oath they might have taken, but instead enjoy their unlimited, unrestrained power over their fellow citizens. These people will come after your guns, violate your rights, force you to be inoculated with harmful vaccines, steal your money and private property and place you in a detention facility if you dare resist or shoot you and be proud of the accomplishment. These people are not elected, but will always remain the real force of the government machine. Those elected to public office become the easily replaceable figurehead. It is accomplished every election cycle.

History teaches the machine always collapses under its own weight and corruption. Its loyal supporters are rewarded for their service with executions. The question is: how many freedom loving, liberty-seeking individuals must give up their freedom and/or their lives before this happens?

 

(This article was originally written and published in 2009)

In Rightful Rebel Liberty

WHY WE WILL NEVER BE TRULY FREE

When it comes to being a true supporter of individual Freedom and Liberty, one cannot be just a little bit pregnant, you either is or you ain’t.”

At several times in the history of this country, a large segment of society began to realize their individual Freedom and Liberty were under attack by those who were tasked with the protection of those rights. The first time occurred when Americans were subjects of the British Empire. Brave folks, some of whom were the true founders of this country, such as the Sons of Liberty, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Lighthorse Harry Lee and others, threw tea in the harbor in Boston, openly challenged the House of Burgesses in Virginia and stood on the Green at Lexington to defend the rights of the people to be armed and defend themselves against the tyranny of illegal government actions. In so doing they became enemies of the state.

Next in this country’s history were the brave people of 1860-1865 who stood against the financial tyranny of the majority in government who were using the South as a “cash cow” for their political ambitions in the North. Although “history revisionists” would have you believe the war of that era was fought over slavery, the truth is: like all wars, the motivation was money and power over others.

The North, through numerical domination of the Congress of the day, was using a steadily increasing tariff which fell primarily on the cotton states to finance internal improvements in the Northern states. When the 7 cotton states of the deep South seceded in 1860-61, the North began to see the financial destruction of their society and the loss of revenues to support their tyranny. This condition of financial distress in the North was readily apparent in the “Speech of the Honorable H.R. Nelson of Tennessee on the disturbed condition of the country.”

Three short months ago this great nation was indeed prosperous and happy. What a startling wondrous change has come over it within that brief period. Commercial disaster and distress pervade the land. Hundreds and thousands of honest laboring men have been thrown out of employment; gloom and darkness hang over the people; the tocsin of war has been sounded; the clangor of arms has been heard.” (Washington: H. Polkinhorn, 1861, 1-12) (*Author’s note: from the third sentence on, does the above quote remind one of the conditions we face today?)

Of course, the purely sectional government of 1861 under Abraham Lincoln decided to preserve the flow of revenue into the coffers of that government by initiating a war which killed 800,000 people and a scorched earth policy against the people of the South who dared to embrace the tenets of the Declaration of Independence which was cited in each and every Secession Convention. Those who claimed the inalienable rights of the Declaration were deemed to be enemies of the state by the Lincoln administration.

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It must be noted Abraham Lincoln did not receive one electoral vote from the states in the South and did not appear on the ballot in many of them. What was the cry of the Revolution: no taxation without representation? Under what illusion could the people of the South believe they had representatives in a purely sectional government led by a people who openly expressed their hate for the people of the South? Lincoln did not receive a majority of the popular vote in the entire country; he got something slightly less than 40%.

Today, in this country, we face similar circumstances to those faced by true Patriots in 1775 and in 1860. An overreaching, omnipotent government, acting completely outside of constitutional restrictions has declared war on anyone who dares oppose their illegal authority.

The conflict that was brought about by similar conditions in the 1770s in New England and 1860 in the South is seeing a rebirth in the Western States. The federal government, which unconstitutionally claims ownership of up to 84% of the land in Nevada, (more than the entire land area of New England) and not significantly lesser parts of other Western states, seeks dominion and control over it all. Again its all about money and power. The federal government is determined to depopulate the West by driving farmers and ranchers out of business and force everyone else into larger cities, using of course the dictates of United Nations policies and directives. (Read UN Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda)

Totally worthy of the title of a Son of Liberty was one LaVoy Finicum. Mr. Finicum, realizing the truck he was driving was under fire by rogue elements of our government, and that his passengers were in mortal danger, jumped from his truck in an effort to draw attention and gunfire away from them and towards himself. An act of sheer bravery which cost him his life. But, I do believe the Good Book states “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

What has drawn my ire and attention in the past week or so are those who have cowardly challenged the motives and actions of not only LaVoy Finicum, but also, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox and others who had the courage to stand for Liberty and Freedom for us all. Certainly, they too were declared enemies of the state.Especially obnoxious are those who claim residence in the liberty community. Of course their motives for aligning themselves in this community is the desire for personal notoriety or financial gain. Documentation of this allegation abounds.

True courage, such as that exhibited by LaVoy Finicum, is a rare commodity indeed. Freedom and Liberty do not sprout and bear fruit in the hearts of cowards, or those who seek fame and fortune. Those who criticize the courage of such people or the motivation for their efforts, are either useful dupes, controlled opposition or out-and-out paid agents for the government they claim to oppose.

Some have written the answer to our dilemma involving the illegal seizure of land and water in the West by this oppressive government can be found in the government owned and controlled courts, as long as we are able to come up with millions of dollars with which to line the pockets of lawyers. Is it not the courts and crooked lawyers who have sold us into financial and physical slavery? Can anyone seriously believe the courts will ever turn on the very source of their power? Would it be germane to believe people who propose such madness are instruments/puppets of the very government they pretend to challenge and should be looked upon with the same disdain and contempt any man of courage would feel for Mayor Bates in the movie Red Dawn?

The full force of tyranny and oppression at the hands of those who cowardly pulled the trigger on LaVoy Finicum and others who never fired a shot in their own defense has been well established. More land will be seized; more water rights taken; more Patriots shot and imprisoned; more farmers and ranchers driven out of business; more court decisions rendered supporting government while demonizing those who support our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I have a question for those who claim “this is not the hill we choose to defend and possibly die on?” Where is that hill? Emphatically and demonstratively tell us where that hill is in your mind. Where is the line you will not permit the tyrants to cross? When is enough” Tell us please; we anxiously await your description of the line-in-the-sand you will not allow tyranny to cross and what encroachment on your rights will not be tolerated.

The events in Oregon came to the bitter and deadly end that they did, not for a lack of courage on those involved, but for a lack of courage in those who criticized them from the very beginning of their efforts. All the despotic government needed was a few cheerleaders from the patriot community to justify their actions. They got them in spades.

The victory won by the people in Bunkerville Nevada in April of 2014 at the ranch of Cliven Bundy, was lost in Oregon because several who tried to take control over the proceedings in Nevada for personal notoriety and the possible resultant financial gain, went away butt-hurt from the Bundy ranch, determined to exact their pound of flesh/revenge from those who refused to be led by such people. The events in Oregon presented these cowards with the perfect venue for their much awaited revenge.

It is in the hands of such people as those mentioned above; useful dupes, controlled opposition and government lapdogs, that the failures in Oregon belong. Only in their wildest imaginations and wet dreams will they ever acquire the courage on display for all to see by LaVoy Finicum. May God rest the Soul of a True Patriot—damned few left.

Freedom and Liberty will never again reign in this country as long as the jealousy and vindictiveness of those who claim to cherish both continues to reign supreme with the shallow minded, and those who seek personal notoriety and enrichment within the Patriot community continues to run rampant. Freedom and Liberty die where alleged proponents attack people of courage and conviction with vile words and ad hominem attacks.  You can either support Liberty and Freedom or you can support tyrannical government—it is impossible to do both.

It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit.” ~ John Wooden

In Rightful Rebel Liberty

 

 

 

 

WHAT IS IN A WORD?

Possibly the most misunderstood, misapplied, misrepresented word in the English language is the simple three letter word spelled, l-a-w. What or who is the law? How is it to be defined? Who is charged with its application as relates to the citizens of this country? Who is to decide what the law is and what the law is not? Is the law only the tool of the righteous or can it be used for the purposes of abject tyranny?

“A nation of laws; law and order; law enforcement:” words and phrases we hear a multitude of times each day. But, what is the intended purpose of a “law?” If we relate this back to our Declaration of Independence, the organic document of our freedom and liberty, we see laws should have only one purpose, and that would be to protect the rights of the people. Sadly and tragically, laws have now become instruments of tyranny and oppression. Governments have created laws to oppress the rights of the people they were tasked to protect.

Simply stated, any law that violates or restricts the inalienable rights granted to each individual by his/her creator, is null and void on its face. The problem, as I see it, is this: Our so-called founders, especially the Federalists, worked diligently to make sure no enforcement mechanism was included in our Constitution and Bill of Rights which could be immediately imposed on any elected or appointed member of government when they violate their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our Constitution. They mistakenly believed the people would educate themselves to the point they would immediately recognize any encroachment on their freedoms and move immediately to either recall these miscreants, vote them out at the first opportunity or hang them for treason.

The Anti-federalists, being knowledgeable of history and the foibles inherent in the human race, attempted to place enforcement mechanisms within the Bill of Rights to prevent usurpation and tyranny. Finding that impossible, especially in the various State Ratification Conventions, the Anti’s correctly predicted what would become of our government without such mechanisms in place. A cursory reading of Patrick Henry, Brutus, Centinel, The Federal Farmer, and many others, reveals a prediction and an insight into the tyranny and despotism of the government in place today, not only in our federal government, but also at the state and county levels.

According to Article VI Section II of our Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” This often misquoted and abused section of our Constitution clearly states for a law to have any validity, it must be made in pursuance of the dictates and limitations of our Constitution. Simply stated: “in pursuance of” means the law must follow the tenets of the Constitution to the letter. If it does not, it should not be enforced nor should people be prosecuted for violating it.

I believe it was in the 1970s when then congressman Ron Paul proposed legislation that would require all proposed laws to contain a reference to its constitutionality in the preamble of that bill. When Ron Paul’s proposal was unable to obtain sponsorship or support, it should have been a huge alarm to American voters—but—how many even know it happened? How many unconstitutional laws and acts have been passed since? How many unconstitutional wars; how many deaths? How much of our national debt can be directly traced to those unconstitutional laws and acts?

The vast majority of laws today are not in pursuance of our Constitution. They are indeed, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nothing but the tyrant’s will.” Legislators who propose and write these laws are criminals, those in positions of power who sign them into law are traitors; those who wear a badge and carry a gun to enforce the tyrant’s will are criminals; prosecutors who prosecute citizens using unconstitutional laws and regulations are criminals. The judges who preside over trials and sentence citizens for violating unconstitutional laws are tyrants. The un-elected bureaucrats who propose and enforce regulations (BLM, USFS, BATFE, etc) as law are also criminals, for only the legislatures can constitutionally make laws. All of the above are the “domestic enemies” to our Constitution each of them took an oath to protect us from, which makes them more despicable than any common thief. They not only steal and plunder, they do so under the color of legitimacy.

When citizens support these elected officials, bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, judges and other assorted tyrants, they willingly contribute to their own enslavement and promote the demise of not only their creator granted rights, but the rights of others as well.

Frederic Bastiat warned us of just such perversions of the law in his book published in 1850 which stated:

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal.”

And:

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.”

Last week, on a road in Oregon, this nation took a giant step toward total fascist rule and ventured even further down the road from any possibility of a return to legal, therefore, constitutional government. The members of “law enforcement” there who took the life of Lavoy Finicum did so to defend plunder and to participate in it. The unconstitutional acts of the BLM, the FBI and the Oregon State Police were acts of those who believe they are “naturally superior” to those (we sheep) with whom they deal on a regular basis.

The Bundy brothers, Lavoy Finicum, Shauna Cox, and others who went to Oregon to defend the property rights of the Hammonds and thousands of other farmers and ranchers here in the West whose entire financial and personal freedoms are in the hands of “the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers” were there in defense of all of our constitutional, creator granted, inalienable rights, while those who opposed them were there supporting and enforcing the unconstitutional, invalid, tyrannical laws of the plunderer class.

Those who have supported the government in these endeavors, especially those claiming to be part of the “patriot community,” are equally as guilty of being at the service of the plunderers as those who pulled the triggers and ended Lavoy Finicum’s life.

Lavoy, Ammon, Shauna, Ryan and many others stood steadfast for the Constitution and our inalienable rights while others sat at keyboards and microphones typing and uttering words in support of the tyrants who seek refuge under the color of unconstitutional “law.” Again, as Jefferson so eloquently stated, “Law is often nothing but the tyrant’s will and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” The tyrant’s will was on full display in Oregon and will be visiting a city or town near you in the very near future.

There is a global design behind the property seizing actions of our government and its various bureaucracies, it will not stop until all the land and water in the West has been seized and those defending it dead or in prison. Oregon is but a microcosm of things to come.

The “whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes” have deployed themselves against constitutional law, freedom, liberty and individual rights, and at some point in time will be displayed against all who claim the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is all just a matter of time.

There is a reason the plunderers mentioned by Bastiat keep referring to themselves as upholders and defenders of the “law” but seldom if ever mention the Constitution they took a sacred oath to uphold and defend. Ammon Bundy and Lavoy Finicum constantly referred to the Constitution in their assorted presentations while those in authority justified their tyranny with the “law” of the oppressor. This is the reason the standing army of uniforms and badges refer to themselves as “law enforcement” rather than Constitution enforcement officers. The difference is between Liberty and Slavery—the choice is yours; pick a side!

Who is your Liberty inspiration; Obama, George W, Hillary, the Republican Party, the Democrats, or Jefferson and Henry? If you sat down with all the political candidates for president—-would any one of them condemn the actions of “law enforcement” in Oregon, the luring of those people into an ambush and the subsequent loss of life and freedom—If they would not, they support tyranny, not the Constitution; they support the law of the plunderer, not the rights of the individual. In this there is no “lesser of evils.”

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” (emphasis added) Kentucky Resolution of 1798, author, Thomas Jefferson

In Rightful Rebel Liberty