(Author’s note: I originally wrote this article some 7 1/2 years ago, thus the reference to Obama. I have made a few modifications to the original article for clarification purposes and removed broken links. Many states legislatures are still proposing more and more restrictions on our inalienable right to have the necessary tools to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Many times they offer to the uninformed partial rights based on age or the ability to pay for the privilege. For this reason, I believe the tenets of this message to still be most relevant. Our rights are inalienable because they were granted by our creator. Why do we continue to beg and pay government to exercise the rights we already have? 

As a government grows more and more intrusive on individual liberties, that government’s fear of the armed citizen increases exponentially, just as an armed robber fears a well-armed potential victim. Here, in America, in the last seventy plus years, our government and their stooges in the media have sought to relegate the right of a free people to keep and bear arms into a privilege, subject to government approval, rather than an inalienable right. Sadly, many gun owners have agreed to participate in this madness.

I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if, and when, I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have an inalienable right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe?

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change.

In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah.

If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege.

I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights.

An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently (2009) became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?

What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.

What a masterstroke it was for the government to get Ignoramus Americanus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the “reasonable” restrictions of his masters and his/her ability to pay the required fee. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!

If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the government, bought and paid for.

Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.

Resistance, anyone?



We are continually told by our government and their shills in the media of the criminality engaged in by those with the audacity to challenge the legality of government intrusions on our liberty and freedoms. They oftentimes refer to us as “Domestic Terrorists.” “By what authority” could a local, elected public official such as a Sheriff challenge unconstitutional laws has been on the lips of many of the candidates . Ignorance is bliss and it requires very little action.

What would the course of action by those who see government as an infallible entity (civic religion) and those in the judicial branch who live by precedent over our Constitution and Bill of Rights be if a federal judge were to refer to a government organization as a “criminal enterprise?” If that same federal judge were to cite two members of that government organization for engaging in a conspiracy to interfere with the rights of others and intimidate witnesses, would law enforcement and prosecutors move immediately to indict and prosecute those so cited and accused?

What if this federal judge said: “In the present case, the government organization’s actions over the past two decades shock the conscience of the Court?”  What if this criminal enterprise was charged with obstruction of justice and contempt of court? What if the employees of this organization were charged with conducting a “twenty-year conspiracy” depriving others of their property rights and extortion of money? What if this criminal enterprise had been repeatedly ordered to pay damages in the millions of dollars for their criminal acts but had simply refused to do so?

What if this criminal enterprise continues unabated?  What if this criminal enterprise is our own government operating through the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service? The above comments and quotes were taken from the case, Estate of Wayne Hage v United States and comments concerning government criminality came from the former Chief US District Judge of Nevada, Robert C. Jones.

What we have, emanating from no less authority than a federal judge, is a criminal indictment of the actions of the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in the state of Nevada for over 20 years. But, here is a question that must be answered: Has the tactics declared a “conspiracy to deprive a man of his private property,” “intimidating witnesses” and actions that would “shock the conscience of a federal court” only taken place in Nevada, or is the criminality systemic throughout those federal agencies regardless of the state in which they operate? To answer this question one need only look at similar acts in many western states. Do the criminal acts perpetrated on the Hage family vary in any great detail from those visited on the Wallace family of Montezuma County, Colorado? Were these same criminal acts visited on the Bundy family in Nevada in the spring of 2014 and on the Bundy brothers, LaVoy Finicum, Shawna Cox and others in Oregon in January of 2016?

Now, for the obvious question: Are there laws on the books in each state in which the USFS and BLM operate which make conspiring to take someone’s personal property; intimidating witnesses and obstruction of justice an illegal act? If Joe Citizen were to engage in activities that would shock the conscience of a federal court and judge, would they not be facing criminal indictments and jail time? If so, then why haven’t state and county officials moved to indict and arrest these criminals or have we devolved politically in this country to the point that, like in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, members of the party apparatus are “above the law?” There are many in local and state government who claim they have no authority or jurisdiction in such matters. How could that be if there are criminal statutes on the book prohibiting such actions by anyone, including federal employees?

Obviously, the authorization for employees of the USFS and BLM to conduct themselves in such criminal behavior must originate with the upper management of those agencies, especially considering it has been condoned for decades and no employee has received any public discipline or termination. I can assure you the decision not to pay the Hage estate the monies awarded by a federal court was not made at the local or state levels.

The next question that must be asked is: considering the overwhelming condemnation of the acts of the USFS and BLM in Nevada by a federal judge, why has no action been taken by our members of Congress to bring these outrages to an end? What would happen if members of the House of Representatives, using the powers of our Constitution, simply voted to de-fund all rogue government agencies and replace those in authority? Do we believe for a moment these cowards operating behind the authority of the federal government as they go about their “criminal enterprise” would continue their criminality if the paychecks stopped rolling in? Is this not an indictment of our federal government when the facts are clear our tax dollars are going to fund this criminal enterprise? If members of Congress refuse to take the appropriate action, are they not “co-conspirators” in these crimes and themselves obstructing justice?

Donning my tinfoil hat, I am compelled to ask another question: Are these criminal actions by the USFS and BLM, operating with a wink and a nod from our Congress, simply a continuing effort to “collateralize” our national debt to protect the international banking interests and their loans which allow our government to continue unabated with this madness?

In 1987, in Colorado, at Estes Park, a large group of environmentalists, members of the world banking cartel and United Nations bureaucrats, including then Secretary of the Treasury James Baker, who gave the keynote address, Chase Manhattan’s David Rockefeller, Edmund de Rothschild of the Bank of London and investment counselor George Hunt who served as official host, met and eventually formed the World Conservancy Bank.

While the environmentalists in attendance were being hypnotized and mentally intoxicated with promises of protecting the Rain Forests and fixing the Ozone Layer, the banksters went to work to seize land and water in the Western States. Quotes from their speeches and correspondence are most revealing.

“Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world’s people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don’t suspect anything. They’re very naïve. Not stupid, ignorant. I’m talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights.”  ~George Hunt

“No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” ~James Baker

There it is—in their words—not mine. Federal Judge Robert C. Jones made the indictments and ferreted out the real conspirators. Do I still need my tinfoil hat?

The intrusions on our private property by those operating under the color of law and authority would soon end if those in local and state government would grow a pair, follow their sacred oaths to our Constitutions, Federal and State, and arrest and indict these “federal sheriffs” Patrick Henry warned us about in the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788. But such actions would require the support of an ignorant but thoroughly entertained populace I oftentimes refer to as the species, Ignoramus Americanus.

A word to the wise: DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH.





When James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”

In opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.

So, why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people, ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Unfortunately for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats and a huge majority of people in this country.

So-called “conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual states.

On the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:

“…(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Giving the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat.

On this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention:

“If the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . . If they are not given up, where are they secured?

I do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national” government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered and finally extinct.

So, how is this connected to Adolf Hitler you ask? The answer can be found on page 572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf.  While lamenting that Bismarck had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler said:

“And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . .”

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.

Abraham Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with the limits of a constitution.

Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.

The candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil, murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty that they are.

Contrast please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson.

“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 578

“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798

As you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most closely resembles the government we have today, supported by candidates and politicians who claim the federal government and its attendant bureaucracies and decrees of the US Supreme Court to be gospel?”

Would it suffice to say that as the power of the individual states and the people are concerned, so goes Freedom and Liberty?

Who do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?