Log in

Archive for February, 2013

The true history of gun control – Timeline

February 28th, 2013 by



by: J. D. Heyes

Throughout the history of the world there have been despots, tyrants, dictators and kings who have imposed their will over those they conquered. After defeating rival armies in battle, many of these rulers went on to lead cruel, ruthless and abusive regimes largely by keeping the subjugated powerless to resist.

Men like Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia; Genghis Khan, who founded and ruled the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise; the Caesars of the Roman empire; and the pharaohs of the Egyptian empire all conquered, then kept power, by ruling with iron fists over people who were powerless to resist because they did not have the means to do so. In feudal England, British subjects in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere were forbidden to bear arms, and as such were forced to remain loyal to the crown (until they won their independence by force of arms).

In more recent times the invention and mass production of the firearm made conquering – and then controlling – entire populations much more difficult, which is why the most heinous despots in the last 150 years have moved to limit or ban access to guns. In our own country, prior to the Revolutionary War, some colonists did own firearms but in the months before, and directly after, the war began King George's generals implemented gun confiscation policies – a primary driver behind the adoption of the Second Amendment by our founding fathers.

As gun control once more becomes an issue, and as some lawmakers, academics, pundits and ordinary Americans call for outright gun bans and confiscation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in mid-December, it is vital and appropriate to examine the history of gun control around the world, and the carnage visited upon the innocent by gun-grabbing tyrants.

Soviet Union – 1929 — Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II tossed 11 million Russian peasants into World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, scores of armed Russians – many current or former Russian soldiers who were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin – rebelled against a ruling regime that was already teetering on the edge of collapse.

Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Soviet citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished – a time which saw the rise of one of the world's most repressive regimes, that was led by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin (he ruled from 1941-1953 but was entrenched in the country's leadership by 1928).

From 1929 to the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country's leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths. Early in Stalin's political career, he launched two national collectivization campaigns in order to transform the country into an industrial power. Both campaigns, however, were rife with murder on a massive scale.

"In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance," says a history of his political career at Gendercide.org. "The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict laborers, overwhelmingly men.

His "callous disregard for life" was matched only by his paranoia; later, he purged the Communist Party itself of anyone and everyone he believed was a threat – all under the auspices of a total gun ban.

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves," he once said.

The Ottoman Empire – 1911 — The Ottoman Empire, the origins of which were in Turkey, implemented full gun control in 1911. A few years later, beginning in 1915 and lasting until 1917, some 1.5 million Armenians (out of a total of 2.5 million) living within the empire were rounded up and murdered by the "Young Turks" of the ruling class. In what has since been called the Armenian Holocaust, "Armenians all over the world commemorate this great tragedy on April 24, because it was on that day in 1915 when 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were rounded up, deported and killed," says a short history of the slaughter by the University of Michigan. "Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets and in their homes."

The Ottoman government established "butcher battalions" which consisted primarily of violent criminals who had been released from prison just to kill ethnic Armenians. Those who were members of the army (which was currently fighting the Allies in World War I) "were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed," said the university history.

Germany – 1938 — Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938, just prior to the implementation of his horrendous, murderous campaign to exterminate the Jews. In the end, 13 million Jews and other perceived lesser races were killed by Hitler and his Nazi Party.

In 1942, at the height of the Second World War and German advances, Hitler said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.

China – 1935 — The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, just two years before Japan invaded in 1937. In the period from 1935 to 1952, some 20 million citizens and political dissidents were murdered. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, which was launched by the country's supreme ruler, Mao Zedong, took place from 1966-1976, and "claimed the lives of several million people and inflicted cruel and inhuman treatments on hundreds of million people," says MassViolence.org. "However, 40 years after it ended, the total number of victims of the Cultural Revolution and especially the death toll of mass killings still remain a mystery both in China and overseas." The actual figures remain a highly-classified state secret.

Regarding gun control, Mao once said: "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."

Cambodia – 1956 — The year this Asian nation issued its total gun control edict was in 1956, but the real carnage did not begin until several years later, during the regime of the demonic Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million "educated" people whom he believed represented a threat to his power in "killing fields" that were later depicted in a movie by the same name.

In all, more than 56 million people around the world have been murdered as a result of gun control laws imposed by rulers and despots who knew that the only way they could continue to brutalize their own people and stay in power was by disarming them.

And now left-wing pols, politicians, academics and pundits want our leaders to have the same ability to rule unopposed and unafraid of reprisal.

"Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George," writes Bradlee Dean for WorldNetDaily.

Anyone truly interested in preventing mass murder should not be a supporter of gun control.







10 13 11 flagbar


And the Antidote to the Great Fiscal and Monetary Crisis Is ..

February 25th, 2013 by


By Anthony Wile

"Fiscal trouble ahead for most future retirees." Or so the Washington Post tells us in a recent column explaining why future retirees (Baby Boomers) are headed for considerable trouble. Grim reading, actually.

For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation's elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.

This is worth commenting on because it only illustrates a larger point we've made a number of times: The system is broken and if you listen to mainstream financial advice you're going to end up homeless on a soup line hoping for dinner.

What is pernicious about articles like this one, in my humble view, is that they purport to be telling the truth but don't provide either context or historical accuracy. Here's more from the Post article:

The Great Recession and the weak recovery darkened the retirement picture for significant numbers of Americans. And the full extent of the damage is only now being grasped by experts and policymakers. There was already mounting concern for the long-term security of the country's rapidly graying population. Then the downturn destroyed 40 percent of Americans' personal wealth, while creating a long period of high unemployment and an environment in which savings accounts pay almost no interest. Although the surging stock market is approaching record highs, most of these gains are flowing to well-off Americans who already are in relatively good shape for retirement.

Liberal and conservative economists worry that the decline in retirement prospects marks a historic shift in a country that previously has fostered generations of improvement in the lives of the elderly. It is likely to have far-reaching implications, as an increasing number of retirees may be forced to double up with younger relatives or turn to social-service programs for support. "This is the first time that Americans are going to be relatively worse off than their parents or grandparents in old age," said Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research.

Advocates for older Americans are calling on the federal government to bolster Social Security benefits or to create a new layer of retirement help for future retirees. Others want employers and the government to do more to encourage retirement savings and to discourage workers from using the money for non-retirement purposes.

But those calls have been overwhelmed by concern about the nation's fast-growing long-term debt, which has left many policy-makers focused on ways to trim Social Security and other retirement benefits rather than increase them. The economic downturn exacerbated long-term factors that were already eroding the financial standing of aging Americans: an inexorable rise in health-care costs, growing debt among older Americans and a shift in responsibility from employers to workers to plan for retirement.

The article never explains the "Great Recession" but merely asserts it – like a fact of life. We are supposed to accept that these things occur without searching for the cause. But those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

There were, of course, those who understood quite clearly what was about to happen. They did their best to warn us but the powers-that-be (and general population) remained complacent. Late in 2007, things took a turn for the worse. The economy began to crash and by 2008 the devastation had spread to the rest of the world and the "sovereign" debt crisis had begun to afflict Europe.

In Greece, Spain, Portugal – most of Southern and Eastern Europe – retirements have been reduced or have evaporated entirely as a result of the "Great Recession." In the US, tens of millions lost 50 percent of their life savings or more in the ongoing crashes of 2007 and 2008. And today, tens of millions more don't have anything else to lose.

While once children could have supported their aged parents, the current crisis has reduced the employment prospects for young people in much of Europe to nearly nil. None of this was expected by those involved but a lot of it was predicted by those who understood monetary history and were aware of its goals.

One can argue, of course, that this was part of a larger Money Power strategy to create a fiat dollar – and shove the world toward a single currency. If so, then the rest of the West's (especially the US's) monetary history makes a lot of sense. Sovereign overspending was utilized to generate the justification for a deal with Japan. Japan would buy US treasuries and US consumers would purchase Japanese products.

This elevated some Japanese companies to world class status and also made Japan a more consumerist and Westernized society. The same sort of thing happened in China in the later 1990s and 2000s. Africa is apparently next on the list to be consolidated. In each instance, a case is made for the transformative effects of capitalism but unfortunately, it is not capitalism that is being created but a kind corporatist mercantilism.

The Washington Post article seems to yearn for the past, when government programs were seen as helpful and effective. Here's the important graf:

The precarious situation comes after a long period of change that improved life for the nation's seniors starting with the enactment of Social Security in 1935. By the 1960s, retirees also benefitted from universal health insurance through Medicare and Medicaid, sharp increases in Social Security benefits and new protections enacted by the federal government for workers who received traditional pensions, which for decades were a standard employee benefit. The changes rescued millions of retirees from poverty, while lifting millions of others to prosperous retirements symbolized by vacation cruises, recreational vehicles and second homes. But now problems for future retirees seem to be closing in from all sides.

You see? This is a sentiment that is beyond simplistic. It is dangerous. The more that people put their trust – and financial health – into the proverbial hands of the state, the more apt they are to end up without the security they've counted on. We can see this today. It is not a hypothesis but a reality.

Historically speaking, modern corporatist states are not run for citizens' benefit. The concern that is expressed, the dialogue that is being presented every day, are merely distractions. Think of how many billions of words have been written about Western retirements, how to save for the future and how to invest in a profitable way. Despite all that has been talked about, written and otherwise presented, the current system is wrecked and people's prospects are getting worse not better.

Lately, I've noticed an uptick in people's positive emotional response to the markets and the economy. But the same misinformation and economic manipulation that occurred before is occurring now. Central banks have dumped tens of trillions into the larger marketplace and when that money begins to circulate rates will have to be raised and recoveries, such as they are, will be cut short. The dollar reserve system itself must be seen as in a kind of terminal decline as well. Sorry, folks.

Let price inflation move up even a little, and the carrying costs of US debt will likely become insupportable. These trends simply aren't being explained on a regular basis. Instead, we get alarmed articles about how a US "savings deficit" has to yield to targeted, government oriented financial programs. Alternatively, we get widely publicized policy battles about deficit reduction and continued and expanded "austerity." But neither government programs nor austerity will help salvage the larger economy, in my opinion.

Here's the good news, though: You don't have to worry about it.

There are practical steps you can take to help yourself. Some of them you'll find right within the pages of this website, TheDailyBell.com. Don't wait for government. Don't keep hoping that bureaucratic "wonkery" will come to the rescue. Recognize you have to do it yourself.

There are, of course, certain kinds of equity opportunities that you can invest in – if you can find a trusted advisor. And there are – or should be – steps you can take to move some of your holdings offshore and into precious metals or even real estate. There are plenty of other positive steps you can take on your own and within your community to ensure your and your family's safety.

We are still being taught to look toward government for the solution to our private retirement dilemmas and general prosperity. The last century should have taught us that this is a chimera – what we like to call a dominant social theme – that government and public spending are a substitute for individual responsibility.

Unfortunately, no matter how many articles are written, or how much is broadcast, reality doesn't change. The person responsible for you is … you. And if you are to have a good and hopefully prosperous life, you will have to take action to make it so.


What can I say when I cannot convince my children, or my wife, that every dollar you can spare must go into silver. Either bars and coins or coins only depending on the amount of your funds. Gold is a good place for savvy investors but the average blue collar worker with three or four hundred thousand saved and invested, is at a disadvantage over how and when to buy and sell. Also, every middle class investor has been brain washed into looking for return on investment. In good times that is the way to go, but this is a time for preserving your assets, not increasing them. The powers that be, are manipulating both metals as much as they can, but silver has always been the commodity that carried through to the end. Gold, by its very nature is more attractive to the powers that be, and will continue to fluctuate violently before the bankers lose control of it. Silver by contrast is the poor investor’s salvation, as it has always been the most stable in the long run of any commodity. Don’t take my word for it, as there are hundreds of knowledgeable advisers on the net. Sort them out according to common sense and put your money in silver before you lose it all. Paper investments are going to be toilet paper investments before this is over.

Right now, anyone who has stocked up on ammunition is making a killing, but the days of buying it cheap and in quantity are long gone. Ditto for most other necessities of life. Those who have waited have lost the chance to survive and prosper. If you take any of this advise to heart, make this your highest concern, If you don’t have it, you don’t own it. Take possession of your silver and protect it with your life. Stay away from paper instruments. They are paper dollars in disguise.

10 13 11 flagbar

The Normal Persons New World Order

February 25th, 2013 by


Attention is the universal currency in the quantum economy; we really do get what we pay for. – Craig Pinegar

Sigmund Fraud

Activist Post

The term New World Order (NWO) is ubiquitous in our society nowadays, and is repeated by world leaders, pop-stars, graffiti artists, and scholars.

What does it mean?

Something different to each of us, to be sure, but this term is most often used in relation to the plans for world domination laid out by a conspiring group of occultist elites. Often invoking images of a dystopian nightmare where life on Earth is dehumanized, the NWO refers to a coming one-world-government future where suppression of the individual is total, as is the power of the State.

On its own, though, without the associations with Orwellian nightmares and world conspiracies, the term New World Order is rather benign and intriguing, implying that something new is coming, which will include us all, and which will be organized. However, injected into the popular lexicon many decades ago by the literature of the elite and a resonant press, this term now carries with it the dark symbolism of fear, submission, control and conspiracy.

This is NOT Normal…

A vision like this of the future certainly is not normal. Psychopathic behavior and diabolical evil stands out in human behavior, and most people are too occupied with life to get wrapped up in conspiring to enslave the planet.

It is not difficult to envision a better new world consumed with entirely different values and objectives. A world where the important things that make society function are not exploited, where people value the Earth and kinship more than warfare, distraction and consumerism. Where our ingenuity is put to the betterment of our plight rather than into our own destruction. A world that values life rather than worships death.

All Mighty Language

Language is the most effective tool for controlling human behavior. In this manner, the term NWO is language that is being used to inoculate a society with a particular idea, or vision, for the future. In this case, the idea of the global reign of a new totalitarian system of political and social control.

The human mind is a remarkably complex organism, yet remarkably simple to re-program and tamper with. Shockingly effective, hypnosis and Neuro-Linguistic Programming are simple and powerful ways of accessing the sub-conscious mind and planting suggestions, which, over time manifest as changes in behavior and beliefs. This works on an individual and it works, as well, on a collected society.

However, hypnotism is not magic; it is science. In order for it to be effective, the subject must be suggestible andbe willing to be hypnotized, which the American public certainly is. The act of sitting in front of the television and willfully watching advertisements is one demonstration of suggestibility and willingness to follow orders. Our free will is being both taken and given. But, in this lies hope, should we decide to take responsibility for the state of things.

In a significant way, the population is being linguistically programmed to pre-submit and sub-consciously acquiesce in advance to the tyranny of a technological control system, so that, as this system is being constructed around us, any dissidence can be brushed under with aloof sarcasm and group-think, and any dissidents can be identified, ostracized or Guantanamo-ized. To ourselves we are already enslaved.

America Today – The Current World Order

Perhaps another reason that the term New World Order is so deeply embedded in our collective dialogue is that many of us are truly craving a serious change in our lives and in our world.

In absence of an enticing vision of the future put forth by present leadership, people are seeking some vision to latch onto, they are seeking solace in the future but coming up empty. People need something new, something more to life, something more meaningful than the stresses of being consumers and employees.

Yet, at present there is no inviting prevailing collective vision for the future of society. There is not even a public discussion on how to contain the radiation still leaking from Fukushima. Could it be that there simply is no future for us?

In a sense, the public has now co-opted the ‘New World Order’ from the elite, and uses it as a form of daydreaming. The future is the New World Order, a social construct we are powerless to affect. We use the term New World Order because the world we’ve been conditioned to is destructive and leaves us unfulfilled, which violates our true nature as conscious, spiritual beings. And because the term fills a void, it is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.


How we talk about our future is key in the spiritual war that is taking place. To go forth with virtuous collective intention is imperative right now, and we simply don’t have the leadership for this.

The phrase ‘New World Order’ is both a warning sign from a menacing elite, and a cry of desperation from the rest of us. We are stuck in a world with no enticing vision for the future. The elite are trying to plant an idea in our heads, and at the same time we are searching desperately for a new idea. A dangerous combination.

So, really, you decide, I decide, we all decide, or they decide. And this is critical to remember. Although the elite would like us to believe they have a monopoly on the future, it is clear that their trickery and their bribery can only work if we willingly submit. We have the power, should we choose to get up off of our knees and display it.

By paying attention to what is said about the future, we are buying the future we speak of.

This article first appeared here at Waking Times

10 13 11 flagbar



February 22nd, 2013 by


By Lee Duigon

February 21, 2013


Some scientists fear that human intelligence is declining. Gee whiz, they noticed. They chalk it up to a genetic mutation, or fluoride in our drinking water, pesticides, processed food, whatever.

But they’ve only scratched the surface. Here are some of the other key factors behind the rise of idiocy.

One. Higher education makes you stupid. There is no way you can sit in a college classroom for seven years to get a degree in “human rights” or “women’s studies” and not turn into an imbecile. If you think the university doesn’t maim the human mind, you haven’t really listened to the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Two. Public schooling makes you stupid. How could there be a sillier idea than to make your age-group peers—other kids who are as dumb as you are—the most important, the most influential people in your life, and conformity your goal in life? Not to mention such added frills as the gender coach, the cuddle puddle, “social studies,” and “math” lessons about the joys of redistributing wealth. As Paul Simon once put it, “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” Only the process starts in kindergarten, not in high school.

Three. Being governed by Democrats makes you stupid. Some would disagree, saying that being governed by Democrats is an effect of stupidity, not a cause. Who but complete dunderheads would ever choose to be governed by Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Bob Menendez, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hank Johnson, and on and on to the last drop of distilled brainlessness? Case in point: Dems propose “universal pre-school.” Why wait until kindergarten to start the stupefying process? The fact that the country can’t afford such a colossal waste of money is just icing on the cake. Anyhow, scientific studies prove that just listening to the above-mentioned individuals causes necrosis of the brain cells.

Republicans are not much better—but who can remember the last time Republicans governed anything? As soon as they take the oath of office, they start acting like Democrats.

Four. Movies about superheroes make you stupid. That goes for comic books and video games, too. If you still have any interest in costumed superheroes after celebrating your 12th birthday, it means your mind stopped growing at eleven.

The human mind needs nourishment, or it will not grow. It needs challenge, or it will not expand. It will be smothered, stultified, by movies about superheroes, with bodies flying all over the screen and dialogue like “Yeeowww!” and “Waaaah!”

Five. Reality TV makes you stupid. Watching anything about any Kardashian is like injecting your brain with carpet cleaner. If nothing else, it offers a totally unreal vision of reality. Whose reality looks like that stuff? The horror, the horror.

Once upon a time, when it cost real money to produce them, TV shows offered coherent story-lines and professional actors to bring the characters to life. If you don’t believe me, go to youtube and watch a few episodes of “The Rockford Files” or “Wagon Train.”

In truth, our whole popular culture is a vast toxic ocean of stupidity in which we, poor fish, must swim. No one is entirely immune to its effects. And it gets worse by the day.

For instance, this from the U.K. Independent, Feb. 8, 2013: “Academic takes swipe at David Attenborough wildlife documentaries for ignoring gay animals.” Can you believe it? A professor at the University of East Anglia, home of “Climategate,” says the documentaries “are perpetuating the notion that animal relationships are predominantly heterosexual.”

This is stupid beyond anything we ever dreamed was possible. (“And here are the gay salmon struggling up the rapids, so they can mate with other males and produce jack-bloody-nothing…” “And over here we have some lesbian fruit flies…” Gimme a break.) It comes spewing out of an institution incredibly described as a facility of higher education, out of the mouth of a registered “intellectual.” Has anything more asinine ever been said by anyone?

We need to start wondering about whether stupid humans have the survival skills and instincts necessary to perpetuate the species. Meanwhile, the Bible succinctly explains how we wound up on the Pinhead Parkway.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” —Proverbs 9:10

That’s where we missed the turn and just kept going, right down Stupid Street.

© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved

Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com

Website: LeeDuigon.com

E-Mail: leeduigon@verizon.net

10 13 11 flagbar

Sheriff Warns of Second American Revolution if Gun Grabbers Get Their Way

February 20th, 2013 by



Milwaukee County law enforcer urged his citizens to arm themselves

By Steve Watson

A Milwaukee County Sheriff has warned that a second American Revolution may be sparked if unconstitutional gun laws are enforced by police and sheriff’s department officials.

Sheriff David Clarke recently urged the citizens he serves to consider learning firearm safety because of “a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

In a message posted on the Sheriff’s website, Clarke wrote “I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 9-1-1 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared?”

“Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” the message urged.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, the Sheriff hit home his opinions on the gun control proposals that are being pushed via presidential executive orders.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny. So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.” Clarke said.

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.” the Sheriff urged.

Like Alex Jones, Sheriff Clarke also recently appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, in an interview that was clearly set up by Morgan in a failed attempt to demonize lawful gun owners and push the idea of strict gun control. During the broadcast Morgan said that Clarke’s plea regarding citizens arming themselves would “turn Milwaukee into the Wild Wild West”.

“This has nothing to do with violence reduction because the type of violence that we’re talking about, that I see on the streets in the Milwaukee area on a daily basis is not even committed using the weapons that the left is trying to ban.” Clarke told Jones’ listeners.

“They are not using assault rifles, they are not using high capacity magazines, they are not buying their ammo over the internet. The criminals couldn’t care less about a background check, so that tells me that this is ingenuous.” he added.

Related: Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce

Federal Gun Control Laws

“If they were serious about violence reduction, they would get behind me… and join me arm in arm in calling for longer periods of incarceration for repeat career criminals who have demonstrated over and over again that they are going to get a hand gun, that they are going to get a firearm and perpetrate violence.” Clarke noted.

The Sheriff added that a recent a Sikh temple shooting in his County a few months ago was perpetrated by an individual who passed a firearms background check.

“My understanding is the creep in Aurora Colorado who shot up the theatre, also passed a background check.” Clarke said. “This isn’t about background checks, of which the overwhelming majority of gun transfers go on anyway.”

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd.” The Sheriff posited.

Asked why he believed such strict measures were being pushed by the Obama administration at this time, the Sheriff pointed toward a general push for increased governmental control over society.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute’.” The Sheriff told listeners. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.” he added.

“Read the Declaration of Independence, it’s right there where a law abiding people say ‘enough is enough, you are exerting too much influence in our lives, this is tyrannical and we’re going to stop it,’ that’s what they are worried about.” he concluded.

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting

An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.

In the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun.

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-confirms 


10 13 11 flagbar

Feds buying enough bullets for 24 year war

February 20th, 2013 by


By Drew Zahn

Federal, non-military agencies, noted radio host Mark Levin last week, have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

The numbers are based onrecent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.

2-20-2013 8-41-22 AM

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!”

What do federal agencies need with all that ammunition?

The government’s only official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans.

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered. “I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national securityagencies, they play out multiple scenarios. … I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing inthe streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”

Audio of Levin’s discussion on the ammunition buy can be heard below:

As WND reported, even major gun-rights organizations like the National Rifle Association have attempted to tamp down worries over the amount of ammunition, suggesting the number of bullets bought, spread out over five years and across all the federal agencies with armed agents – considering the number of rounds needed for training,qualification and service bags – isn’t exorbitant.

At the same time, however, others have wondered if billions of bullets isn’t too many to equip the sheer number of federal agents, what does that say about the number of federal agents?

“It’s not the number of bullets we need to worry about,” Jeff Knox, director of The Firearms Coalition, told WND, “but the number of feds with guns it takes to use those bullets.”

“There are currently more than 70 different federal law enforcement agencies employing over 120,000 officers with arrest and firearms authority, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data for 2008,” explained Knox in a recent WND column. “That’s an increase of nearly 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. If the trends have continued upward at a relatively steady rate, that would put the total number of federal law enforcement officers at somewhere between 135,000 and 145,000.

“That’s a pretty staggering number,” Knox continued, “especially when you consider that there are only an estimated 765,000 state and local law enforcement officers. That means that about one in seven law enforcement officers in the country works directly for the federal government, not a local jurisdiction.”

For years, WND has been at the forefront of reporting the growth in federal police power being dispersed across dozens of government agencies:

  • In 1997, WND blew the lid off 60,000 federal agents enforcing over 3,000 criminal laws, a report that prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark, “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
  • Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal governmentWND reported on the armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program that had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
  • WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of … paperwork.
  • WND further reported on a plan by then Delaware Sen. Joe Bidento hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen into dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
  • In 1999, WND CEO Joseph Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had
    nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
  • Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
  • In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the
    federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
  • A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
  • In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
  • Most recently, WND reported that while local police have found themselves short of necessary ammunition, the federal government has been stockpiling billions of rounds for its non-military, non-FBI law enforcement officers.

Knox conceded in his column that good arguments can be made for the existence of a dedicated border guard and federal agencies to protect high-ranking officials, protect the federal currency and coordinate enforcement of laws regarding interstate commerce, and so forth.

“But bureaucrats who inspect the records of retailers and manufacturers have no business carrying guns and badges,” Knox opined, “nor do those who investigate white-collar crime for the SmallBusiness Administration and the Department of Education.”

Chris Knox, director of communications for The Firearms Coalition, told WND legitimate concerns about a police state stem from “a set of three intertwined problems,” namely, “militarization of local police, federalization of law enforcement (including local cops getting goodies from federal forfeiture actions) and the expansion of federal law enforcement, where nearly every agency has its own armed service, not just the Drug Enforcement Agency, but administrative agencies like the Department of Education.”

Give all those federal cops two billion bullets, Jeff Knox says, and nowthere’s cause for concern.


Remember this! The scumbags running America never do anything on the spur of the moment! In this case, if the reader has been following the Sandy Hook Case, they would see the relationship between a needed national gun scandal, and the buildup of the feds with guns. Prior planning would dictate the need to reduce the availability of weapons and AMMUNITION to the public, and the present availability is proof of prior planning. Let’s look at it step by step.

First, what is the objective?

To create fear, division, and chaos among the people, and reduce their ability to fight back.

Step One: Bring down the twin towers!

Two: Trash the constitution with ready made but new laws.

Three: Create more anti-constitutional departments of homeland defense, DHS, TSA, etc. etc. etc.

Four: Create an elusion of bankruptcy in the federal government!

Five: Permanently divide the people with Orwellian authority.

Six: Create the elusion that self-defense is not a God given right, by pretending to kill a bunch of children, and blaming it on the weapons.

Seven: Overload the weapons and ammunition industry with massive orders of weapons and ammo for their own scumbag enforcers.

Eight: Trash the value of the dollar and confiscate the peoples private savings.

Nine: Interrupt the food and energy supply to create panic and chaos.

Ten: Create a civil war and kill all of the defenders of freedom as they run out of ammo, food, energy, and everything else they need to survive, and make sure the media industry blames all of America’s problems on the defenders of liberty, then kill the undesirables that are left, and herd the rest into cities. Sell off the remainder of America to the bankers, and other countries. Then transfer American governance to the U.N. or some other configuration of global governance. GAME OVER!



Its much better to die on your feet than on your knees!

10 13 11 flagbar

Gun Rights Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left

February 17th, 2013 by



2-17-2013 9-53-52 AM

Brandon Smith, Contributor
Activist Post

Throughout history, citizen disarmament generally leads to one of two inevitable outcomes: Government tyranny and genocide, or, revolution and civil war. Anti-gun statists would, of course, argue that countries like the UK and Australia have not suffered such a result. My response would be – just give them time. You may believe that gun control efforts are part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda (as they usually are), or, you may believe that gun registration and confiscation are a natural extension of the government’s concern for our “safety and well-being”. Either way, the temptation of power that comes after a populace is made defenseless is almost always too great for any political entity to dismiss. One way or another, for one reason or another, they WILL take advantage of the fact that the people have no leverage to determine their own cultural future beyond a twisted system of law and governance which is, in the end, easily corrupted.

The unawake and the unaware among us will also argue that revolution or extreme dissent against the establishment is not practical or necessary, because the government “is made of regular people like us, who can be elected or removed at any time”. 

This is the way a Republic is supposed to function, yes. However, the system we have today has strayed far from the methods of a Free Republic and towards the machinations of a single party system. Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore. It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity. A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name. Both heads feed the same bottomless stomach; the predatory and cannibalistic pit of socialized oligarchy.

On the Republican side, we are offered Neo-Con sharks like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who argue for “conservative” policies such as limited government interference and reduced spending, all while introducing legislation which does the exact opposite. The recent passage of the “Safe Act” in New York with extensive Republican support proves that Republicans cannot be counted on to defend true conservative values. 

The Democrats get candidates like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who claim to be anti-war and against government abuse of civil liberties, and yet, these same “progressive and compassionate” politicians now froth at the mouth like rabid dogs sinking their teeth into the flesh of the citizenry, expanding on every tyrannical initiative the Republicans began, and are bombing more civilian targets in more foreign countries than anyone with a conscience should be able to bear.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the government is not our buddy. It is not our ally or friend. It is not a “part of us”. It is now a separate and dangerous entity. A parasite feeding off the masses. It has become a clear threat to the freedoms of average Americans. It is time for the public to grow up, snap out of its childish delusions, and accept that there is no solace or justice to be found anymore in Washington D.C. 

Once we understand this fact, a question then arises – What do we do about it? If we cannot redress our grievances through the election process because both parties favor the same authoritarian direction, and if our street protests are utterly ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment, and if civil suits do nothing but drag on for years with little to no benefit, then what is left for us? Is the way of the gun the only answer left for the American people at this crossroads? 

I cannot deny that we are very close to such a conclusion. Anyone who does deny it is living in a candy coated fantasy land. However, there are still certain options that have not been exhausted, and we should utilize them if for no other reason than to maintain the moral high ground while the power elite continue to expose their own despotic innards.

State And County Nullification

The assertion of local authority in opposition to federal tyranny is already being applied across the country. Multiple states, counties, and municipalities are issuing declarations of defiance and passing legislation which nullifies any future federal incursions against 2nd Amendment protections. For instance, the Gilberton Borough Council in PA in conjunction with Police Chief Mark Kessler has recently adopted a resolution defending all 2nd Amendment rights within their municipal borders up to and including the denial of operations by federal officers:



Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period:


This trend of dissent amongst law enforcement officials debunks the nihilistic view promoted by disinformation agents that “no one in law enforcement will have the guts to stand up to the government no matter how sour it turns”. It has also shaken the Obama Administration enough that the White House is struggling to counter it by wining and dining police unions and sheriffs departments in order to form their own “coalition of the willing”. Obama seems to believe that holding press conferences using children or police as background props will somehow earn him political capital in the battle for gun rights, but I have my doubts:





Multiple states have legislation on the table to nullify as well, and it would seem that the violent push by the establishment to extinguish the 2nd Amendment has actually sharply rekindled the public’s interest in States Rights and the 10th Amendment.

This does not mean, though, that we should rely on nullification alone. While the gun grabbers are stumbling into severe resistance at the national level, some representatives are attempting to supplant gun rights at the state level, including New York, California, Washington State, and Missouri. The goal here is obvious; counter states rights arguments by using anti-gun legislators to impose federal controls through the back door of state legislation.

They will claim that if we support states rights, then we have to abide by the decisions of regions like New York when they ban and confiscate firearms. It’s sad how gun grabbers lose track of reality. Neither federal authority, nor state authority, supplants the legal barriers of the Constitution itself, meaning, no federal or local authority has the right or power to remove our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of privacy, OR our freedom to own firearms (including firearms of military utility). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights supersede all other legal and political entities (including treaties, as ruled by the Supreme Court). At least, that’s what the Founding Fathers intended when they established this nation. The point is, a state is well within its rights to defy the Federal Government if it is enacting unconstitutional abuses, and the people are well within their rights to defy a state when it does the same.

Economic Nullification 

There is actually a fantastic economic opportunity to be had by states and counties that nullify gun control legislation. Many gun manufacturers and retail businesses are facing financial oblivion if the establishment has its way, and moving operations outside the U.S. is not necessarily practical for most of them (gun manufacturing is one of the last business models we still do better than the rest of the world). Municipalities could offer safe haven to these businesses, allowing them to continue producing firearms and high capacity magazines, fulfill expanding public demand, and create a surging cash flow into their area while at the same time giving the federal government the finger.

This strategy does not come without dangers, though. Many states and counties are addicted to federal funding, and some would go bankrupt without it. The obvious first response by the feds to protesting local governments will be to cut off the river of cash and starve them into subservience. 

This brand if internal financial warfare can be countered by local governments by nullifying a few other unconstitutional regulations, including those issued by the EPA and the BLM. States and counties could easily disable federal land development restrictions and begin using resource development as a means to generate supplemental income. North Dakota is essentially doing this right now in the Bakken Oil Fields, becoming one of the few states in America that is actually creating legitimate high paying jobs (instead of part time wage slave jobs), and growing more prosperous every year. 

This tactic is not limited to state governments either. Counties also have the ability, with the right officials involved, to regain control of their economic destinies anytime they want. All it takes is the courage to rock the establishment boat. 

Refuse All Registration Schemes

National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation. The process is usually done in a standardized manner: First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners. Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06). Then take all semi-auto handguns. Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”. Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”. Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting. Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left. 

Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation. I am not discounting that possibility. But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration. 

Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun. Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit. You have shown that you will submit to anything.

After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked. If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are. Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have. The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more. 

Gun Barter Networks

The retail firearms and ammo markets are Sahara dry right now, and will probably remain that way in the foreseeable future. Anything that is available for purchase is usually twice the price it was last year. Extremely high demand is removing retail from the picture before any legislation is even passed. Enter barter…

Cash will remain a bargaining tool for as long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency and holds at least some semblance of value (this will end sooner than most people think). That said, as gun items become scarce, the allure of cash may be supplanted. The signs of this are already evident.

Gun owners are now looking more to trade firearms and accessories for OTHER firearms and accessories, because they know that once they sell an item, they may never see it again, and the usefulness of cash is fleeting. Gun Barter is not only a way for firearms enthusiasts to get what they need, it is also a way for them to move around any future gun sale restrictions that may arise. Private gun sales are legal in some states, but do not count on this to last. Barter leaves no paper trail, and thus, no traceable evidence of transaction. For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all. If it does not adhere to the guidelines of our founding principles, our founding documents, and our natural rights, then it is just a bunch of meaningless words on a meaningless piece of paper signed by a meaningless political puppet. 

3D Printing And Home Manufacturing

3D Printing is now available to the public and for those with the money, I recommend they invest quickly. Unless the establishment wants to make the possession of these printers illegal, as well as shut down the internet, there will be no way to stop data streamers from supplying the software needed to make molds for every conceivable gun part, including high capacity mags. This technology has been effectively promoted by the Wiki Weapons Project:


According to current ATF law, the home manufacture of gun parts is not technically illegal, as long as they are not being produced for sale. But in a state or county where federal gun laws have been nullified, what the ATF says is irrelevant. 

Home manufacturing of gun parts and ammo would be a highly lucrative business in such safe haven areas. And, the ability to build one’s own self defense platform is a vital skill in a sparse market environment. The ultimate freedom is being able to supply your own needs without having to ask for materials or permission from others. It should be the goal of every pro-gun activist to reach this independence.

Force The Establishment To Show Its True Colors

While some in the general public may be incensed by the trampling of our freedoms by government, many (including myself) would view direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous. The moral high ground is all that any dissenting movement has. It will be hard enough to keep this ground with the constant demonization of liberty minded people that is being espoused by propaganda peddlers like the SPLC and numerous media outlets. We do not need to help them do their jobs.

Now, to be clear, I have NO illusions that the above strategies will defuse a confrontation between those who value freedom, and those who desire power. The hope is that enough people within our population will refuse to comply, and that this will make any future despotism impossible to construct. However, it is far more likely that these acts of defiance will elicit a brutal response from the government. And in a way, that is exactly what we want…

The Founding Fathers went through steps very similar to those I listed above and more to counter the tightening grip of the British Empire during the first American Revolution. The idea is simple:

Peacefully deny the corrupt system’s authority over your life by supplying your own needs and your own security, rather than lashing out blindly. Force them to show their true colors. Expose their dishonor and maliciousness. Make them come after you like the predators they are, and then, once they can no longer play the role of the “defending hero” in the eyes of the public, use your right to self defense to send them a message they won’t forget.

Skeptics will claim that physical defense is useless against a technologically advanced enemy. They will claim that we need a "majority" we do not have in order to prevail. These are usually people who have never fought for anything in their lives. They do not understand that the “odds” are unimportant. They mean nothing. No revolution for good ever begins with "majority support". Each is fought by a minority of strong willed and aware individuals. When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy. All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice. 

There is no other culture on earth that has the capacity, like Americans currently do, to defeat centralists, defend individual liberty, and end the pursuit of total global power in this lifetime. We are the first and last line. If freedom is undone here, it is undone everywhere for generations to come. This is our responsibility. This is our providence. There can be no complacency. There can be no compromise. There can be no fear. It ends on this ground. One way, or another…

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here: http://www.alt-market.com/donate 


What else can be said to convince you it is time to meet up with like minded patriots with common sense and make a plan to defend your self from the out of control and tyrannical government we are obligated to live under. Never forget this is our America, this is our home, our Nation, and our freedom, which we will never surrender. Keep a cool head and do nothing foolish. This is a case of letting them start it, not us! But never forget that what we refuse to surrender is worth all the gold in the world. The freedom to defy a tyrannical government must never be lost. And our putrid neighbors, who refuse to defend liberty, are no different from the government, because if they will not defend liberty they will have already defended tyranny. Patriots, it is far better to die on your feet defending liberty than to live on your knees pleading for bread and mercy. Have you ever heard of a merciful tyrant? Please give Alt-Market whatever support you can afford.


10 13 11 flagbar


Enemies Foreign and Domestic

February 17th, 2013 by



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle —  Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Jack Mullen

Activist Post

America is facing two wars, both instigated by a foreign nation with foreign interests; wars to be fought here on American soil with Tyranny and Liberty in the balance. 

At this very moment Americans are secretly being herded, manipulated, divided and gulled into a civil war; A weakening, disarming, demoralizing, devastating, but still dispensable civil war. Then, without relief, the second, and most brutal, war will begin; a war to determine the future of the worldfor generations to come. 

The Civil War will be a false flag event, staged to disarm Americans followed by an attack of multi-national troops – destroying the final resistance and instituting a new system of government; a world government with the former America as a territory. 

To understand how this is possible it necessary to open your mind and look around.

The United States Government has been captured and is not the government authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America, but rather a usurper occupational government that is de facto.

Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines de facto

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. 

Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines usurper

One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. 

A Constitutional government has limited authority to intervene in the operation of the states and would have almost no authority to intervene in the lives of citizens of the states. A Constitutional government cannot exceed its authority as defined in the Supreme law of the land but, using only the 4th and 10th amendment as a check, it’s abundantly clear, the United States federal government has exceeded its authority, is rogue, and thus illegitimate, illegal and void.

If asked how to cope with a great host of the enemy … I should say: "Begin by seizing something which your opponent holds dear; then he will be amenable to your will."  Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The de facto United States Federal Government (USG) is actually a country unto itself, a nation located within the area defined as the District of Columbia and territories held in the name of the United States, but not incorporated in the Union of States called the United States of America (America) [A]. 

Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17 of the Constitution for the united States of America contains a loophole exposing the Constitution and America to a pathogen, an invading foreign body; a quiet deceit – a Trojan Horse in the heart of America [A]. 

In the United States today we have in effect two governments. … We have the duly constituted Government. … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution – Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee [C]

It is in the District of Columbia where usurpers began to create a separate nation, a legislative democracy, legislated by the same Congress legislating the Constitutional government of the Union of States. By careful use of the name United States, distinctly differing from United States of America, but deceitfully used as a synonym for the latter, a parasite has perched on the heart of our Republic. 

After years of deceit and treachery, the United States has become a foreign master, a tyranny with third party interests and third party goals, pretending to represent the Republic of the United States of America. 

This act [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. … When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. – Charles A. Lindbergh Sr speaking to Congress after the Federal Reserve was passed, December 22, 1913 [C]

If the United States is a foreign legislative democracy, who are its leaders, are they not the duly elected members of Congress and Senate and the White House? No – in fact, it’s been a long time since the United States of America has had leaders not in service to foreign masters. The last time was before Woodrow Wilson was conveniently placed in office and before the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve was given charge of American money and credit. 

The truth is, the USG is an agent of the top five (or so) International mega-banks including the private Federal Reserve. The bankers are proxies of power and action for a hidden elite, a small group of hereditarily wealthy families that have for hundreds, if not thousands of years, controlled and influenced the world. Names such as Rockefeller in America and Rothschild in the United Kingdom are among those that control the USG. 

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

It is the country of the United States, with foreign interests and control, which seeks to instigate and benefit from a war; a war between the United States and America. A war they plan to start AFTER inciting a civil war.

It is time to recognize and acknowledge the deceit, only then can you ‘know the enemy‘. 

Deceit quite deliberately leads to confusion and confusion leads to disarray and self defeat. Americans are being pitted against Americans to disarm America – before the war starts with the United States. It’s time to be clear: Americans, the citizens of the 50 states, are being deceived, by a cunning and ruthless foreign nation, into choosing either tyranny and enslavement by tacit unconditional surrender (disarming) or face a baited civil war and final war against an undeclared enemy (International bankers occupying and controlling the United States, a separate and hostile nation embedded in the heart of America.) 

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest – James P. Warburg, testimony to US Senate hearings concerning United Nations and its organizations, February 17, 1950

Why is America slated for destruction? Dr. John Coleman writing in Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, explains the goal and the reason Americans must be disarmed. According to Coleman the elite, the mega-bank masters of the United States desire a
A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. 

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited.[emphasis added][B]

A civil war, to be instigated by the USG, is necessary to quickly involve and downsize armed populations and destroy police units that might, in the end, still be loyal to America. A civil war is necessary because American active military troops might be unwilling to attack and kill Americans, except, if necessary to "restore peace" (a deception). A civil war is necessary to demoralize and turn Americans against any further violence that will be required to preserve the right to self defense and inevitably the right to life. 

The move to disarm Americans is a false flag campaign and it includes elements of staged attempts to get some people to voluntarily turn in their weapons, while others will be cast as terrorists, outlaws, renegades, enemies of the state; hunted, jailed or murdered. 

The move to disarm Americans is necessary so mega-bankers, and their elite masters, can move on to the next stage of their megalomaniacal dream of world government, a world government based on feudalism. A world government of elites and slaves – and in between nothing, except a tear for what could have been. 

Although crime is currently at a 50-year low in America, yet gun ownership and sales are at all-time highs, crime and violence will rapidly rise after "gun-control" measures are implemented and Americans willingly disarm. For examples of rising crime rates under gun-control conditions look at Chicago or Mexico. 

The abbreviated list below names a just a few reasons why being and staying armed, now, is more important than anytime in American history since the revolutionary war.

  • The USG has recently announced the dollar’s value will be “killed”[1].
  • Federal agencies are arming themselves with billions of rounds of HOLLOW POINT ammunition for use in a war they will create against American Citizens [2]. 
  • The USG is creating unnecessary agencies to act against American Citizens; agencies such as The Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the Transportation Safety Agency; agencies created to subdue American Citizens. Structurally these unnecessary agencies are similar to agencies created by Nazi Germany during the early growth period of Nazi fascism and subsequent tyranny. For example, the Nazi RSHA, equivalent to DHS, was the parent agency of the SS, the Gestapo and a whole menu of police state bureaus – organized to maintain ironclad control in support of Nazi authoritarianism. DHS appears to be the parent agency to a growing number of sub agencies such as the TSA. [3]. 

The global mega-banks have control of the American military. The American military is a mercenary force working toward the goals of a foreign usurper which include creating a world government, while ending nation states. The military is being used to destroy nation states around the world and will later be used against American Citizens. Without weapons, Americans cannot hope to present even the threat of repelling an attack by the usurper controlled American military. 

The USG is currently conducting military drills simulating assaults on American cities, see the military "training" operations in St. Louis, Miami, Houston and other cities. This is unprecedented and signals the USG is practicing for a time when they will be back to these cities with non-simulated assaults [4]. Unprecedented USG military training, in apparent total disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act, has been noted around the country. Foreign troops have been reported training in various locations including documented evidence of Russian troops training in Colorado and others reportedly seen in North Carolina and Texas. [F] 

The USG, using a totally controlled television media, created a false hysteria around shootings at the Aurora theatre and Sandy Hook elementary schools. These events were not properly investigated and many aspects surrounding the events appear to be completely staged. Therefore, until they are privately investigated, it has to be assumed these too were FALSE FLAG, staged events, similar to the Dunblane primary school shooting in Scotland, used to disarm citizens of the United Kingdom, and the Port Arthur massacre used to disarm Australians. Both Dunblane and Port Arthur have similarities consistent with the shootings reported at Sandy Hook. [5] 

The global mega-banks and the USG have evolved the condition where more than 50% of Americans are beholden to government for basic survival needs; welfare, job contracts, subsidies, food stamps etc. Fifty percent of the people dependent at the same time government will be forced to devalue the dollar to continue servicing its debt. As debt continues to rise, and more government borrowing is required to service the debt, inflation will destroy the currency and the value of the entire financial system denominated in dollars will collapse, making support of those on government assistance impossible. This situation will lead to sharply rising crime; crime that would be less damaging if Americans are armed.[6] 

Further dollar-related news, the Chinese and other nations are maneuvering to replace the Federal Reserve Note (FRN) as the world’s reserve currency. The plan will be to begin using gold and silver for purchases of petroleum. The so-called petro-dollar (FRN) retains its value primarily because it’s the only currency accepted for purchases of petroleum in the major oil producing countries. United States world power is maintained in large part by a monopoly in the petro-dollar. The value of the dollar will drastically change with the loss of this monopoly since dollars, purchased to exchange for oil, will not be available to invest in United States treasury notes. 

Devalued dollars will purchase less food, while mega-banks manipulate food prices with financial market products tied to food resources. Commodities market derivatives, Exchanged Traded Funds (ETF) and commodity index funds associated with raw food materials are financial products that can artificially manipulate food prices and production leading to shortages and rising prices. Additionally, the USG has reduced the amount of corn that can be grown for food as corn earmarked for conversion into ethanol products is diverted from the food market. Finally persistent drought and higher prices for imported foods, as the dollar is devalued, will lead to generally rising food prices and shortages leading to rising crime. [7][8] 

The USG has engineered the mass migration of American industry to China, resulting in a falling standard of living (in America) which will decline more sharply as the dollar is devalued. At that time rising prices will lead to massive unemployment, resulting in rising crime; crime that would be partially offset if Americans were armed. 


The global mega banks have looted and relocated American wealth (manufacturing, patents, gold, silver and other physical or intellectual things of value) to China and other foreign locations; American gold and silver has been stolen. Precious metals looting is why the private banking cartel, called Federal Reserve, refuses an audit of America’s precious metals reserves. 

The global mega banks have engineered and sold fraudulent financial instruments that will cause hundreds of trillions of dollars of counter party obligations during conditions resulting from a dollar devaluation. These obligations will become the obligation of the American Citizen via secret and deceitful contracts hypothecating all American assets as collateral for USG debt. Americans will be aware that mega-bank obligations, assumed firstly by the de-facto government and then transferred by agreement to Citizens, are fraud, but without weapons it will not be possible to rightfully stop the confiscation of property. American property will be dispensed to global mega-bankers and their operatives including the Communist Chinese. The Chinese will bring military forces to protect their property against disarmed Americans. 

The USG Department of Justice and the President of the United States are operating a lawless fascism, unrestricted by the supreme law of the land (Constitution), the USG will ‘authorize’, by executive orders and illegal statutes such as the NDAA, use of attack drones to kill Americans without warrants or any due process. 

The global mega-banks acting through their agents of the USG, have implemented a eugenics program to surreptitiously reduce American population. The system uses a long-term approach and acts through a process of genetically modified foods, chemically poisoned public water supplies and a medical system of treating only symptoms of disease with harmful, addictive and poisonous pharmaceuticals. 

This list is just the beginning, but it does highlight a few important points. When the dollar is devalued (not if), the American way of life will instantly change. Rising prices, food, medicine and fuel shortages will cause crime and violence to rise. A falling dollar value means imports slow or stop all together. As the dollar falls in value (while prices in key sectors rise), the economy will begin to slow, leading to higher employment. Unemployment and rising prices, especially for food, will cause higher crime rates. Being armed during this period of time is critical if you are to protect and keep what resources you may have accumulated. 

As the dollar is devalued, those on government assistance will need more money to buy the same goods – causing civil unrest among those depending on government funds for subsistence. At that time all American governments will be seen as a failure and their collapse will be forth coming. As traditional governments (states and some federal services) begin to fail, the USG will become embolden to continue the goal of destroying the American system of states and sovereign nation status. Troops, US and foreign, will begin to collect people suffering from economic collapse and financial ruin, placing them in ready-to-go FEMA camps situated around the country. The pretense will be to feed and care for people, but the truth will much different. The USG will require hungry, cold, sick and homeless people to turn in their guns and accept authoritarian rules before entering the camps. While in camps, it will become apparent to the occupants the USG is going bankrupt. Devalued dollars, taxpayers unable to pay, foreign nations demanding payments on loans will all be used as reasons why the expected support, food, medicine and care will dwindle. Life in the camps will become violent, leading to mass murder, starvation and forced labor. 

At this point the outlook is grim. Americans seemed to have the choice of accepting tyranny now, disarming and preparing for the coming collapse of the dollar, still leading to camps, mass murder, and the end of America. Or Americans can stand now, in a contrived civil war, and fight to keep their only means of self defense, knowing at the end of this bloody, tiring and demoralizing conflict, the traitorous former government of the United States will be waiting with troops both foreign and domestic to continue the assault until Americans defeat and rout the foreign United States or accept the tyranny after defeat. 

I think these two choices are valid, but only after a certain point in time. For now, Americans have a slim third possibility. We are still armed. We are still well fed and the dollar will still buy meals, medicines, and munitions; we still have power.

In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. – US Constitution

The Militia is the real department of homeland security. The militia existed before the Constitution, and continues to this day. Able bodied men 18 to 45+ are already enrolled (if not yet notified) in the militia of their residing state, and each state has the responsibility to organize and make ready the men in their charge. Individual states have laws regarding age categories and the organization of the militia. State laws, and the Militia Act of 1792, require men to equip themselves with necessary combat supplies and firearms. The militia is vital part of the tools given to Americans to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. 

Thomas Paine said “it is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” and the militia, created before the American Revolution and used during the Revolution, is what a patriot must learn about, rebuild, and organize again to protect his country from its government and foreign enemies (the United States).

What distinguishes the militia from the private agency armies and the military of the United States? 

  • The authority for militia is any threat to public safety. 
  • Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it. 
  • Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them. 
  • No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband. [emphasis added] [D] 

Each state has a militia, from there each county and local region have units and sub-divisions. Investigate your state’s militia, actively enroll and get the ball rolling. These are tools we have now and they cannot be taken away. It is important to understand the militia is not a privately organized small group of men roaming around in the backwoods. The militia is a state level and state organized (including counties) public army, operating without pay and having no allegiances other than to the Constitution, and with final authority in matters involving preservation of the American system. 

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Get aggressive. The current system of American money is unconstitutional and also a fraud and scam and is used by the enemy to fund operations against Americans. It is possible to take some measures that will proactively cause the dollar to be less important, while taking away the power of the criminal banks existing as parasites on a stream of stolen wealth called interest payments. 

The mega-banks can be punished while moving toward a lawful monetary system. For example, if 1 million people would buy 100 ounces or more of silver now, 100 million ounces of silver worth approximately $3 billion at the current value of the dollar, the house of cards surrounding the price fixing of silver would begin to fall apart. One million people is not that many, but if only 60,000 people took a portion of their soon-to-be devalued paper dollar savings and turned it into silver now, it would have the same effect. $50,000 worth of silver at say $31/oz is, rounding off, about 1600 ounces of silver. So if 60,000 people with savings of $50,000 or more bought 1600 ounces of silver, the banking cartels criminal death grip on the American monetary system would begin to change. At that point those buying silver would have an asset that will not devalue as the dollar’s value cracks and collapses. 

As the banking system begins to feel the pressure of the silver price increase, caused by just 60,000 people (around the attendance of a NFL game) buying 1600 ounces of silver, those having silver could start spending it into the market. Rising silver prices will cause dollar devaluation and silver could be used to barter items instead of using devaluing dollars.

Remember, silver will not lose its purchasing power as the dollar devalues and the paper currency’s purchasing power approaches zero. The chain reaction of this action would bring about a cleansing as corrupt-to-the-core financial institutions began to crumble; their participation in decades of silver and gold price fraud and manipulation finally costing the banks instead of suckered investors. For my thoughts on rising silver prices and metals price suppression seehttp://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/50-


Staying proactive, contact your state legislators — I visited mine in person — get them up to speed on what's happening to their state and America. Download and print documents about states that are writing legislation to protect the second amendment. Remind your legislators you can vote with your feet and move! If you have to move (like people in NY, MD, NJ, CA and IL) then do it. There are states that will resist and that’s where you will be among like-minded, and armed, resisters in great numbers. 

Contact your local sheriff — I did — explain the situation and remind him that he’s the highest Constitutional law authority in the county. He has signed an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the State and the United States Constitution and he has the power (and obligation) to keep so-called federal officials and agents out of the county. Buy your sheriff a copy of Richard Mack’s book, The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope and buy a few copies to pass out of Alex Jones’ videos such as Police State 4 and End Game.

Alert: yet another weapon has been re-discovered, built into the system, and available to be used now in the fight against the rogue USG. Jury Nullification is a concept dating back to the Magna Carta and has been used in the America many times when the legal system became corrupt and illegal laws were used to punish citizens. Fully informed jurists can declare the law illegal : 

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794) 

The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. – U.S. v Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113 at 1130 (1972) [E]

Thomas Jefferson stated : "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." It is possible, then, to turn back unconstitutional law using your right to declare the law illegal. 

Illegal Laws are NOT LEGAL and you are responsible and obligated to ignore them and arrest and prosecute anyone, uniformed or not, that tries to enforce illegal, unconstitutional law.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]

So, when States like Maryland or New York enact laws that infringe on the right to "keep and bear arms" – you are responsible to NOT obey; furthermore, because these laws are void, anyone attempting to enforce the laws is a criminal and should be prosecuted. 

The meaning of void from Black’s Law Dictionary is : “Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.”

Also be sure to use the remaining purchasing power of your dollars wisely, because soon they will be worth far less. Buy land, food, guns, ammo, silver, solar panels, education, etc. 

Learn a martial art — coming situations may require confrontation and being prepared is the best policy.

Get together with your neighbors and help them prepare and make a neighborhood plan. 

The instigators are preparing to take charge of all states, all property, implements, food, farms, equipment, arms and claim the right of disposition of all people. (executive orders are already in place) 

So here’s the bottom line: being armed is the only threat against tyranny you have. Gun owners are the militia against the tyranny gathering at the gate. Regardless of your own interest, feelings or opinions about guns, the truth is: guns are a force field, a repelling barrier, an equalizer, a final last resort chance to remain free, alive and in charge of your own destiny. 

Remember, the instigators MUST have your permission to destroy this nation of states. You must provide the spark that lights the fire of their revolution. We have reached a singularity in time and history. This is a beginning and an end; for if free will is real, and if good can and should prevail, then now is the time to come together and take the Moral High Ground

Morally Americans must not use their arms until their is no other choice. We must not be baited into the false idea that being disarmed is American. When America is disarmed, America is gone, not just physically, but philosophically. Since 1776, Americans have experienced liberty and self-determination like no other nation in recorded history. But this freedom and self-determination has been predicated on the ability to defend against those that would enslave and determine our lives. The American experience has always tacitly depended on guns at the door. 

Abraham Lincoln said: 

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide. – Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, January 27,1838

Again, Lincoln said, “All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years”. What were Lincoln’s assumptions when he made that statement? The assumption was Americans were ARMED and could not be attacked by FOREIGN enemies and fall because there were guns at every door.

Americans are being attacked now by a foreign enemy. A foreign occupying force has usurped our Federal Government and is now trying to destroy America from WITHIN. 

Lincoln said: “If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

To win this battle, and it is indeed a great historic battle – an age old battle between good and evil -Americans cannot “die by suicide”. We must remain armed and remain informed. WE must support those that have the courage and understanding to remain armed and ready to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

But we must take the Moral High Ground, which means we will not be baited and instigated into a battle amongst ourselves. This is truly the OLDEST manipulation in the world. The Moral High Ground means we shoot last. 

The Moral High Ground demands we do NOT SURRENDER our arms. And, in order to keep the Moral High Ground, we stand up now and DECLARE to our leaders, statewide and in the Congress of the usurper Federal Government: we are Constitutionally the Sovereign and the government is a LIMITED representative of the people and WE the PEOPLE will not give up our right to self defense. 

When we have stated that we DO NOT CONSENT to being disarmed and we have stood silent without firing on ourselves. Then, if it must be, with the MORAL HIGH GROUND, we can stand and fight united AGAINST the foreign usurper enemy. 

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take… OUR FREEDOM! – Mel Gibson as William Wallace, Braveheart.


What kind of man, after reading this article, would lay it down and forget about it?

Dear readers, you must throw away your fantasies, accept what is right in front of your eyes and heed the instructions above, or you will soon be bending over kissing you ass goodbye. Those of you who know and believe you have just read the truth must get involved in educating your fellow Americans until there is a real informed and infuriated citizenry in every State. Do not loose your temper at the dull and ignorant, they have been spoon fed intellectual excrement their entire life and are addicted to it. Just keep up the pressure and continue teaching. There will always be cowardly backstabbers, so watch your back! Many brave hearts will be needed in the near future, men whose knees will not bend now or ever!


* quotes from “The Art of War” :http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

[A] "The Two United States and the Law"http://supremelaw.org/library/freeman.html

[B] Source taken from : http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

[C] Gary Allen, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”,Buccaneer Books, New York, 1971,pg 59,58 ISBN:0899666612

[D] Militia : http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

[E] Jury Nullification : https://fija.org/

[F] Massive Military Training in Many States:http://www.thegovernmentrag


[1] http://www.infowars.com/senior-obama-official


[2] http://www.infowars.com/establishment-launches-




[5] Port Arthur False Flaghttp://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm; Sandy Hook False Flag : http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/09/evidence-sandy-hook-


-and-mainstream-media/; Dunblane False Flag :


[6] https://rt.com/usa/news/half-government-million-percent-320/






Jack Mullen has been a businessman for more than 25 years, owning 3 radio stations, several technology based companies and a resource development company

Read other articles by Jack Mullen Here

10 13 11 flagbar


SC Attorney General Come Get the Guns!

February 15th, 2013 by



The Congressional Two-step with Mick Mulvaney


2-15-2013 10-16-56 AM



In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. Sighting many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed. The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.

With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.

In the Attorney General’s opinion “federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority”. This means that an agent could come to your home, break into your home, ransack the place, seize anything, all without a warrant and he would be immune from state prosecution or even inference with his ransacking.  The opinion also states “…that the Department (Kershaw County Sheriff’s dept.) should neither interfere with nor otherwise attempt to impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform theirlawful duties to enforce federal laws, and who act necessary and proper within federal authority.” Would enforcing an unconstitutional ”law” be considered to be an act of “lawful duties”? Are federal gun control “laws” “necessary and proper”for the federal government to be dictating? Finally in his conclusion SCAG Allan Wilson writes “…under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, neither state law nor state law officials may interfere with or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. We further advise that conduct intending to impede the discharge of the lawful duties of federal law enforcement officials may expose such persons to criminal liability.” and then he sights yet another in a long list of cases to back up his opinion but there it was again that pesky little phrase, “lawful duties“. Again, would some sort, any sort, of gun confiscation at a state or federal level be “lawful”? Think about it like this, if the federal government passed a law requiring every American to sign over their property would federal agents coming to remove you from your home be a part of their “lawful duties” and would that be “necessary and proper“?

The SCAG opinion when boiled down and filtered comes down to this, anyone who tries to stop a federal agent will wind up in court and likely lose according to results from past cases or “case-law”.

What does this mean for sheriff’s? They have to make a choice, protect the people and risk going to court or stand down and risk the rath of the people.

Instead of protecting citizens sheriff’s, with the AG’s blessing, will stand down and let it happen. Matthews has been quoted  saying “I’m not going to take your guns” but he did not tell the people he will instead stand by and watch as federal agents seize weapons. In fact if a citizen was to refuse to give up his weapons to federal agents the sheriff would be forced to protect that federal agent from any action impeding the enforcement of federal law. What is not said or written about is the fact that sheriff’s rely on federal money, bribes if you will, to build their own forces.

Local Law Enforcement has become part of a national police force by grant.

Since 911 2001 the federal government under the guise of national security and the war on terror has been providing massive funding to state and local law enforcement agencies across the nation. Billions upon billions have been “given” for thousands of different reasons from tanks and armored personnel carriers down to radios and cameras all given by grant. Every grant comes with strings, hoops if you will that you must accept in order to receive this “free money”. Many departments are now part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) under the Department Of Justice. Global is a national data base that the Kershaw County Sheriff joined as part of a grant requirement for five in-car cameras costing $16,000. Many other grants have similar requirements which if all tallied up leads to federal control by contract.

Do not bite the hand that feeds you.

With the money to be had in federal grants sheriff’s have been recieving as much of the “free money” as they can get their grubby little hands on. Many, if not a vast majority of them, without reading or even caring what the fine print requires of them. Richland County sheriff Leon Lott says he will not stand in the way of federal agents as does sheriff Metts of Lexington county both of which have received millions in government grants with all the strings attached.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has received many federal grants including his infamous APC. Lott, along with thousands of other sheriff’s across the country, have actively sought any federal grant possible without regard to any of the requirements of these grants. Most sheriff’s are more likely than not never even read the fine print. Sheriff Matthews admitted as much when questioned about one such grant during a Kershaw County Council Meeting. Asked if he had read the grant Matthews said “no I have not read it and I don’t know anyone who did.” He was then asked if this was good for the county to which he replied “yes, it is good for the county.”

Sources close to Lexington County sheriff Metts say that the sheriff backed off from becoming and oathkeeper because of threats of losing the departments federal grant funding. Although this report has yet to be verified Metts did in fact back away from his support for that organization shortly after endorsing the group which leads us to believe there is some basis to suspect the report is true.

With millions of dollars at stake it becomes harder and harder for sheriffs to resist. Grants don’t raise local taxes. They do not show up on a department’s budget which leaves room for other spending and it makes the sheriff look good as he brings in the pork to make the public safer while he may be helping to enslave us all.

The militarization of your local police

The main culprit of militarization was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 19 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. AsNational Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.

“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief in both San Jose, California, and Kansas City, Missouri wrote in a 2006 article for the Wall Street Journal. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.” Noting the considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, “Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”

Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper finds all of this troubling. “We needed local police to play a legitimate, continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001,” says Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “After all, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to ramp up the drug war. It’s just tragic.”

Allan Wilson and these sheriffs have it all wrong.

The sheriff, duly elected by the people, has as his one and only job to protect the individual rights of every person within the county. That is his only duty. Everything he is supposed to do is an effort to help residents protect their rights. Sheriff’s should be training residents and promoting that every citizen be armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighbors from violators of those rights. These duties do not however stop when the federal government comes knocking, in fact that is when the sheriff is needed most. If your sheriff says he cannot or will not stop federal agents from coming for your guns he is not performing his duty and should be removed, by force if necessary, and if he won’t go get out the tar a feathers and make a chicken out of him. County residents will be left with little choice indeed if their sheriff will not stand to protect them. South Carolinians should be very concerned as this opinion, statements by many sheriffs, and the strings that now tie sheriff’s hands, leave them without any protection from a tyrannical government save what they can provide for themselves.

The writing is on the wall, tyranny is coming like a storm on the horizon. The battle lines are being drawn. Your sheriff, if he is like these, is not your friend in fact is now a partner with the despotic federal government.

As the debate over gun control continues to rage it is with the sheriff that our final defense is supposed to be, the sheriff standing to say “no” and the armed citizens standing beside him but as we can now see from the Allan Wilson opinion we the people will be standing alone and the sheriff will be behind us ready to step in to protect the federal agents.

I suspect Sheriff Matthews already knew what he would do, after all he has been a federal agent his entire career. He already thinks that way ( if the fed says jump he asks “how high sir!”) and I suspect he just wanted to remind those who question the supremacy of the federal government that they will be standing alone. The irony is those who stand against tyranny will be backed by the people and those who stand down and let it happen, like Matthews, Lott, and Metts, will be left standing alone.

The NRA bargains away your rights

Most Americans believe the National Rifle Association is pro 2nd amendment but the evidence is contrary and in fact shows that they are the compromiser of choice.

The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.

March 29, 2002

“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

The war on guns began long ago and has been aided by the champion of the 2nd amendment, none other than the NRA. In 1934 the NRA was right there to ban automatic weapons and help make a distinction between “military: and “civilian” weapons.

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.”  —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 2

Assault weapons are not the target.

While the MSM is talking about magazines and assault rifles the real gun control measures relate to mental health and the prevention of crazies getting guns. Enter new mental health regulations. This is the golden goose for all big government globalist both republicans and democrats.

Jump on board the conspiracy train for an all out ride into the twilight zone.

Suppose republicans and democrats come together in compromise and they pass sweeping new safety measures to keep guns out of the hands of potential mentally deranged souls. And let’s just say that the new law requires that anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm must now have a mental health exam. Now just suppose, for a minute, that this guy takes a Zanax every now and then and the doctor, using government regulations, determines he is unfit to own a firearm. Now because he is unfit to purchase a firearm he is also unfit to own any firearms after all he is a potential threat right? And let’s suppose that after being diagnosed a federal judge orders that the man surrender all of his weapons. The man, distraught at this cruel treatment, holes up in his house and says he will not give up his guns. The federal agents move in and surround the house. Who does this man call? Will your sheriff stand? More than likely your sheriff will enter the situation on the side of the federal agents at least that is what Allen Wilson is saying along with the three stooges of South Carolina law enforcement, Jim Matthews, Leon Lott, and of course James Metts.

Think about PTSD and veterans mental health. Any veteran is subject to be singled out, depending on government dictate, as mentally unstable and asked to surrender his firearms. The list of possible mental health disorders are endless and will not be written into a bill, that will be left to the executive branch and its thousands of bureaucrats with the help of many a think tank. We call this rule by regulation.

The NRA will again compromise, republicans and democrats will compromise, and the infringement of our right to bear arms will again take a severe blow.

The American people have been stripped of defense against tyranny.

Like a toothless dog, all bark and no bite, every layer of protection has been stripped away and the politicians know the American people are now left virtually defenseless. They no longer fear the people.

Slowly one piece at a time with the support of the NRA our second amendment right to defend against tyrannical government has been stripped away leaving little in the way of dictatorial rule by an elite oligarchy.

This will not be a door to door confiscation instead it will be one here and another there slowly over time everyone who wants a gun will be labeled with a mental health disorder.

They are coming for your guns.

What will you do?


I had wondered about this situation in my home county and questioned the sheriff, only to be told he would have to perform further investigation on the matter before making a commitment. I have not heard back, nor has he answered any of my emails, so having already made up my mind before talking to him, I resolve to fight to the death if and when they come for my weapons. I am well prepared to take a few with me, and have no regrets, other than my wife will probably be killed with me. If my children were still at home, they would probably be victims also. There is a point when men will have to die in the act of defending their natural rights, and I much prefer dying to living under tyranny. My only regret is not being young and wealthy enough to take hundreds with me. I cannot tell other men what to do, but if they elect to comply and surrender their weapons, I hope they suffer humiliation for the rest of their miserable life. To our federal government and the assholes that support them, I hope you spend eternity in the lake of fire.

10 13 11 flagbar

Manufacturing mass social unrest would be a foolish mistake

February 15th, 2013 by

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Despite the fact that the banking elite wants to generate riots and stir social disorder in order to collapse the U.S. economy so they can buy up real assets on the cheap, if such chaos was to spill over into a full blown civil war, the consequences for the technocrats would be disastrous.

2-15-2013 10-58-24 AM

In part one we explored why the elite routinely generate civil unrest in countries as a tactic of driving down confidence, scaring awayinvestors and setting themselves up as the saviors in order to loot what’s left of the economy for next to nothing.

We also documented how authorities in America are clearly in a preparatory phase for mass civil unrest to break out within the next 5-10 years.

However, basic figures, along with the lessons of recent history, clearly suggest that should such disorder spiral into a new civil war, which many suggest is the very outcome federal agencies are gearing up for (the DHS alone has purchased enough bullets to wage a 30 year conflict), the result for the elite is inevitable failure.

It is imperative to stress that ordinary Americans do not want a civil war. This is not something we or anyone we associate with is actively calling to initiate. This is simply a warning to the power structure that their policies are setting the stage for this very outcome – and it’s not going to end well for them.

Al Sharpton recently suggested that Americans should accept government regulation of the Second Amendment because the primary reason the founders put the right to bear arms in the constitution – to defend against government tyranny – is no longer applicable. Sharpton brazenly implied that the government would just be able to drone strike all Americans who resisted being disarmed.

“First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let’s be serious. We’re in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that,” said Sharpton.

In reality, even if a tiny minority of armed Americans chose to resist government oppression – the odds would be stacked hugely in their favor.

Consider the fact that there are almost 100 million gun owners in the United States, who in total own over 300 million firearms and rising.

There are only around 1.4 million active duty personnel in the entire US military – that includes the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. Even if you include national guard reserves, the total figure is less than 2.3 million.

Even if just five per cent of American gun owners actively resisted in a civil war, that would be five million Americans – more than double the entire US military and national guard, many of whom are already engaged overseas. So even if the government used the military to fire upon U.S. citizens, the troops would be easily outnumbered.

Consider the recent story about the manhunt for former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner.

It took the vast resources and manpower of the Los Angeles Police Department and numerous other law enforcement bodies and federal agencies over a week to track down one guy – one guy!

As part of that manhunt, LAPD officers showed themselves to be bumbling incompetents – engaging in frenzied shootings of innocent people who looked nothing like Dorner and eventually having to burn Dorner alive inside a cabin in order to apprehend him.

If it takes the LAPD over a week to find and kill one guy, how much effort do you think would be required to disarm or kill 100 million American gun owners without meaningful resistance?

Consider the US occupation of Afghanistan that has now entered its 12th year.

A total of almost 500,000 coalition forces and Afghan National Security Forces have failed to defeat Taliban insurgents numbering just 25,000 – a ratio of 20 to 1 – in over 12 years of combat operations.

If the finest of the US military and their allies cannot defeat 25,000 ragtag insurgents in 12 years, how on earth are 100 million Americans going to be subdued?

Consider the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

17,000 troops working on the grounds of the Baghdad Airport couldn’t even secure the road leading to the airport months after the invasion.

If 17,000 troops can’t even control a single road, how does the government plan to successfully occupy an entire country in the event of martial law?

When a population is under occupation and they are being oppressed, the zeal for resistance knows no bounds.

Victory is achieved by refusing to submit – resistance is victory.

The banking elite which controls the US government – the same elite that has engineered riots in other countries – most recently Greece – as part of a process of turning those nations into empty vassals that can be easily looted for their wealth, infrastructure and resources, must realize that it cannot win a civil war in the United States.

Such an eventuality would result in massive bloodshed on both sides – and the elite simply doesn’t have the numbers to claim victory.

This is a warning to the technocrats – do not try to divide and conquer the American people, the police, and the military. Stop characterizing patriotic, freedom loving Americans as domestic terrorists. Do not try to initiate a civil war that would achieve nothing but carnage and a sustained breakdown of society.

As top constitutional scholars like Dr. Edwin Vieira and Lew Rockwell have noted, one of the reasons why the federal governmentis so petrified of the American people rising up to re-assert their God-given rights in the face of an establishment which is arming to the teeth against them, is the threat posed to their illegal power monopoly by the prospect of secession.

Secession is not about destroying America, it is about reinvigorating America as the founders envisioned it, and in the process disengaging from the very forces – the offshore banking elite – who are themselves working feverishly to destroy America so that they may be the first to slice up and devour the dead carcass of a once great nation, just as they have done to numerous other countries over the last three decades.

10 13 11 flagbar


February 13th, 2013 by


Any further delay on the part of the people to commit their time and money to the preservation of freedom in America is going to result in absolute chaos. Therefore, those who have done the work for you have prepared and distributed a document enclosed below. This document is justified by the article written by J.B.Williams, and the Introduction to The 2013 State Balance of Powers Act, precedes the actual document in that order. I and the rest of the Internet Revolution encourage you to send a copy of this article to your State representatives at once. There is no time left to procrastinate.



By J.B. Williams

February 4, 2013

By now, it should be clear to everyone that the Obama administration is strategically destroying America. For those who don’t like America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, our sovereign Representative Republic, this is no problem.

But for the rest of America, those who understand that America is the greatest free nation ever known to mankind, due to its firm foundations in Natural Law and unalienable rights, it’s a huge problem.

What can be done about it?

The Supreme Law of the Land

Contrary to leftist indoctrination, Barack Obama, congress and the Supreme Court, the federal government, is not the supreme law of this land. That lofty position belongs to the Charters of Freedom, our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The people have no legitimate dispute with the federal government when that government functions within its constitutional authority, in a manner which protects and preserves freedom, liberty and justice for all. The federal government has not done that in decades!

When the federal government acts as it does today, in direct violation of the Charters of Freedom and in a blatant attempt to infringe upon the inalienable rights of the states and/or the people, the people and the states have a right and a duty to place the federal government back in check and balance, peacefully if possible, forcibly if not.

When a dispute over the “unconstitutional” acts of the federal government arises between a state and the federal government — the U.S. Constitution under Art. III – Sec. II – Clause II gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction. No other court in the country has any jurisdictional authority whatsoever.

Original jurisdiction should not be confused with “final authority” which the court has tried to grant itself on numerous occasions. The people are the final authority in America, period!

The Rights of the People

The inalienable rights of the people are almost endless under the Charters of Freedom. They are specifically protected by the IX Amendment in the Bill of Rights – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Constitution was not written or ratified to govern the people, but rather to restrict and govern the actions of governmental bodies, through a balance of powers.

The Charters of Freedom and every State Constitution begins with a fundamental affirmation that “all power is inherent in the people” and that “all governmental bodies derive their just powers from the people.” It is stated slightly different state-to-state, but all states and the Charters of Freedom are founded on this fundamental premise.

This means that the people are the “final authority” over what is constitutional or unconstitutional in the behaviors of their governments.

“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.” …. — Jefferson letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

The Rights of the State

As Madison explains in Federalist 46 – (paraphrased) – All power rests with the people. All free governments derive their power from the people. The government body closest to the people, as-in local and state government, is entrusted with the most political power. The government furthest from the people, as-in the federal government, is entrusted with the least power.

It is the first primary function of every State government to protect and preserve the rights of its people. The States power to keep this oath to its people is protected in the X Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Under each State Constitution, the State government has the duty to protect and preserve the inalienable rights of their people, in particular, from a federal government which has become too powerful, acting beyond its constitutional scope and authority, at odds with the people and the states.

The duty of each State government is defined in each State Constitution. The power to check the federal government is protected by the X Amendment.

Because the state assigned the power to provide for the common defense of the people in the Constitution, time would allow that the federal government would eventually develop a Military more powerful than any State military or militia.

It for this reason alone, that the Founders placed the II Amendment in the Bill of Rights – “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Only a State with a fully armed citizenry could protect the Rights of the people, under the X Amendment protections of the State.

When a Government Becomes Destructive of These Ends

An internal armed conflict only becomes necessary when the people and/or their State governments fail to take appropriate peaceful measures to uphold the Charters of Freedom.

“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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” — The People’s Declaration of Independence

The proper line of defense for the people of each state is their State government. The State has the power under the X Amendment, and the duty under their State Constitution, to protect their citizens from a federal government that has become tyrannical in its nature.

Unlike federal legislators, State legislators and Governors are State officials, responsible for securing the peace and tranquility of their people. The oath of a State official is first and foremost, to the sovereignty and security of the people of the state. State officials are obligated to their citizens, not the federal government.

Only when State official fail to protect their citizens, must the people take matters into their own hands.

A Balance of Constitutional Power

In the Unites States, formed of, by and for the people of the United States, all governmental powers are derived from the people, carefully checked and balanced between three independent federal branches, fifty State governments and thousands of local governmental bodies.

Contrary to contemporary propaganda, America is NOT a “democracy” under which 51% is free to infringe upon the rights of the other 49% who stand opposed. America is a “Constitutional Representative Republic” and as such, no majority has constitutional authority to infringe upon the Natural Rights of any minority.

Due to blatant affronts to freedom and liberty, and numerous direct violations of the constitutional balance of powers by the federal government today, it is necessary and proper that each State government take immediate tangible actions to protect their State and the people of the state.

Reactionary measures based upon individual issues are not good enough. Individual pet-issue “nullification” bills are too little, too late. Only a constitutionally grounded broad-based State action can effectively check federal tyranny today and time is short.

A number of states have already introduced The State Balance of Powers Act. Many more are working to introduce the State Legislation over the coming days and weeks. An Introduction to the State Balance of Powers Act is available here.

The Balance of Powers Act does not give states powers they do not already have under the Charters of Freedom. It only makes it possible to swiftly enforce those rights within the state, when the federal government acts beyond its authority.

The Tennessee Legal Office recently issued a memorandum challenging the constitutionality of the Balance of Powers Act. A Rebuttal Memorandum was issued in response, available here.

In short, it is not possible for a piece of State Legislation based entirely upon the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, to be “unconstitutional” no matter how many federal authorities wish it to be.

Additional information on the State Bill is available at The North American Law Center.

People seeking the right peaceful solution to federal tyranny should contact their State Legislators and introduce the Balance of Powers Act in every state. States that fail to protect the people of their state will be directly responsible for the people taking matters into their own hands. Pass the Balance of Powers Act NOW! Time is short… The time for choosing, for action, has arrived!

© 2013 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Introduction to

The 2013 State Balance of Powers Act

Researched and Prepared by The Constitutional Justice Division


Due to a popular false assumption and assertion of supreme federal power subscribed to by all three branches of the U.S. Federal government today, but denied via the confines of the compact with the states and the people known as the U.S. Constitution, we assemble today to introduce a state-by-state measure designed to return the power of state governance to its constitutional place, the individual states and the people of the Sovereign Fifty States, recognizing the enumerated powers delegated to the U.S. government in Article I – Section 8 of the Constitution.

Unlike the symbolic Tenth and Second Amendment Resolutions passed by numerous states over the last two years, which rhetorically reclaim but fail to actually reassert the rights of the individual states and the people, this State Balance of Powers Act aims to return constitutional power to the states by providing each state a streamlined legislative branch mechanism by which to neutralize any federal legislation, mandate or executive order which the state in its sole discretion, determines to be beyond the constitutional scope and enumerated powers delegated to the United States government via the U.S. Constitution, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment which states unequivocally –

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Balance of Powers Act establishes state power and methods by which each state can self-regulate and govern, forcing the federal government to live within the confines of delegated powers enumerated in Article I – Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and protecting the states and people from unconstitutional intrusions into the rights of the people and their respective sovereign states.

We proclaim that these measures are unfortunate, but necessary today, as the federal government acts at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people and the states with increasing regularity and without regard for that will, and offering no reasonable venue for redress for the people or the states.

We are lobbying numerous State legislators in every state, seeking leaders willing to stand with the people on behalf of the people and their states, and reject or neutralize any and all federal abuses of power emanating from the three branches of the federal government, past, present and future.

In this model bill are the following state powers:

  • Reclaims and reasserts both Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights
  • Provides the Constitutional grounds for broad state nullification power
  • Defines “constitutional” as the powers delegated and enumerated in the Constitution
  • Rejects all “unconstitutional” acts by the federal government
  • Addresses abuses via the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and general welfare clause
  • Requires that all federal actions pass US and State Constitutional muster
  • Rejects abusive judicial law making practices via precedent and procedure as without authority
  • Establishes a state Constitutional Review commission to recommend case-by-case nullification
  • Establishes rules and time limits in which the state must review and nullify upon determination of unconstitutionality
  • Reaffirms that the U.S. Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” in all matters between the Federal and State governments, in accordance with Article III – Section II
  • Reaffirms state referendum authority as the final word of the people, in the event of improper adjudication (in compliance with standing state statutes concerning referendums)
  • Positions each state legislature to protect and preserve for the people of their state, freedom from federal executive, legislative or judicial tyranny

For more than seventy years now, no matter which political party was in control of the federal government, that government grew, reaching farther and farther beyond the limited confines of constitutional authority and making every state and every citizen a dependent of the federal government, while the federal government is supposed to be “of, by and for the people.” The federal government is out of check, no longer functioning as a federal government formed by and obligated to the several states, but functioning instead as a central government free to run roughshod over the states and the people.

Our Declaration of Independence states unequivocally, our right and responsibility to “alter or abolish” a federal government which has become “destructive” towards states’ rights and individual liberty.

We have arrived at just such a time in history, and The Balance of Powers Act is designed to place the states and the people in a position to swiftly put the runaway Fed back in constitutional check.

The checks and balances supposed to exist within the different branches of the federal government do not exist today. All branches now act as one, usually at odds with the people and the states and well beyond the powers delegated them in the Constitution.

To return the federal government to the people, the states must take proper and necessary action to provide adequate checks and balances which no longer exist in practice at the federal level.


The basic assault against the power of states to neutralize unconstitutional federal acts usually comes in the following forms…

  • “Andrew Jackson said shoot the first nullifier and hang the rest”
  • “States lost their sovereign rights when they lost the civil war”
  • The “supremacy clause” means the federal government reigns supreme
  • State Constitutions were voided by the US Constitution

Yes, believe it or not, we have heard all of these attacks and then some. Here’s a diatribe from a Democrat state lawmaker whom we will leave unnamed… to protect the guilty.

1) Pres. Jackson’s Presidential Proclamation of 1832, which declared nullification as treasonous:
” …incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed .”

2) The Force Act of 1833, which authorized Jackson to use force to compel obedience to the tariff laws. This is important because Presidential proclamations do not have the force of law unless endorsed by the Congress. SC then “nullified” the Force Act itself. A tariff compromise was eventually struck, but nullification was firmly rejected as unconstitutional doctrine. (IN OTHER WORDS, NULLIFICATION WORKED AND THERE IS NO RECORD OF NULLIFICATION BEING AMENDED OUT OF EXISTENCE)

However, these statements are false, a perverted interpretation of history, not uncommon today.

The simple response to all of them is this –

To claim that the states do not have the right to void or nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government is to suggest all of the following…

  • State sovereignty doesn’t exist
  • States’ rights don’t exist
  • The 9th and 10th Amendments don’t exist
  • The federal government is all-powerful, without restraint
  • The US Constitution is meaningless
  • State constitutions are meaningless
  • The Bill of Rights is meaningless
  • The Declaration of Independence is meaningless

I can keep going here, but you get the point. How do the states which created the federal government for the sole purpose of serving the states and the people, hold the federal government within the confines of the Constitution or compact, without the power to void, nullify or otherwise reject the unconstitutional acts of the government they created for their own benefit?

Contrary to popular belief, the states and people do not exist at the pleasure of the FED. The FED exists at the pleasure of the states and the people. Powers not delegated to the federal government are expressly reserved to the states and/or the people. When the federal government steps across this line, intruding into powers reserved to the state and the people, what should the states and people do about it?

The answer is – The 2013 Balance of Powers Act…

In closing, the states and the people are not legally, morally or ethically obligated to follow federal statutes, mandates, executive orders or court opinions which are wholly at odds with the will of the people under the general welfare requirement and Ninth Amendment protections, and/or states under the Tenth Amendment, and beyond the limited powers delegated to the federal government within the US Constitution.

The proper way to reject such federal abuses is to reject, neutralize, void or otherwise nullify them on arrival at the state line.

Download PDF here. Contact NALC.

2013 State Balance of Powers Act



REFERENCE TITLE: ________________________
STATE OF _________________________________
Introduced by: ______________________________




WHEREAS, the State of ______________ has a compelling interest as a sovereign state of the United States of America in the proper implementation of protection and justice within its borders, and it shall be enacted by the Legislature of the State of __________:

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “________________
Balance of Powers Act”.

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 10] is the following:

(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves to the states and the people, all powers not delegated to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution as they were originally intended and publicly understood at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, and subject only to modifications by duly ratified via subsequent amendments to the United States Constitution. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that _________ was admitted to statehood in __________________.

(2) In accordance with the compact between the state and people of __________ and the United States as of the time that __________ was admitted to statehood in ________________, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the state and people of __________ that other than the enumerated powers expressly delegated to the United States under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress and the federal government is prohibited from exercising any purported additional control over, or commandeering rights belonging to the State of ___________, or its people.

(3) The United States Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, affirms that the sole and sovereign power to regulate the state business and affairs rested in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state concern and central to state sovereignty and security. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ________________. Further, the power to regulate commerce among the several states as delegated to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding, was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This power to regulate “commerce” does not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, major crimes, or land use, nor does it include activities that merely “substantially affect” commerce.

(4) At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress, the Executive Branch or the Federal Judiciary to regulate the state courts in the matter of state substantive law or state judicial procedure. This meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as they pertain to the validity of religious sectarian or foreign law as being controlling or influential precedent has never been modified by any duly ratified amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ______________.

Further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, the “necessary and proper clause,” is not a blank check that empowers the federal government to do anything it deems necessary or proper. It is instead a limitation of power under the common-law doctrine of “principals and incidents,” which restricts the power of Congress to exercise incidental powers. There are two (2) main conditions required for something to be incidental, and therefore, “necessary and proper.” The law or power exercised must be 1) directly applicable to the main, enumerated power, and 2) it must be “lesser” than the main power.

(5) In accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, the “general welfare clause,” does not empower the federal government with the ability to do anything it deems good. It is instead a general restriction limiting the exercise of the enumerated powers of Congress set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, requiring that congress only enact laws which serve all citizens well and equally. When James Madison was asked if this clause were a grant of power, he replied “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” Thus, we re-establish that this clause is a limitation on the power of the federal government to act in the welfare of all when passing laws in pursuance of the powers delegated to the United States, showing no favor to any race, creed, color or socio-economic class. Likewise, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress or the Federal Judiciary to establish religious, sectarian or foreign statutes or case law as controlling or influential precedent. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of ___________ and the United States as of the time that ___________ was admitted to statehood in ____________________.

6) We acknowledge that the “Commerce Clause”, the “General Welfare Clause”, and the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the United States Constitution were amended, and made more specific and limiting at the peoples’ insistence… through the creation of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. All Amendments within the Bill of Rights were for the purpose of further restricting federal powers, vesting and/or retaining the ultimate power and control of the states by the people within the states. Therefore, we specifically reject and deny any federal claim of expanded and/or additional authority which the federal government may from time to time attempt to exert, exercise or enforce under these clauses, as these actions totally disrupt and degrade the Founders emphasis on the Balance of Powers.

Further, the people of the State of ____________________, are aware that the federal government has amended and altered the spirit and the meaning of The Commerce Clause, all without proper legislative authority through amendment. Therefore, we reject and deny this unauthorized and excessive abuse of power which has primarily acted as a detriment to states’ rights and individual rights, a deliberate attempt to negatively alter the Balance of Powers.

7) In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the federal government is denied the power to establish or affect laws within the state which are repugnant and obtrusive to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, state law and the citizens of the state. The Federal Government is restrained and confined in authority by the eighteen (18) items as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

8) Congress and the federal government is hereby denied the power to bind the states under foreign statute, court order or opinion, or executive order, other than those provisions duly ratified by the Congress as a treaty, so long as the treaty does not violate the state or United States Constitution.

9) Further, no authority has ever been given to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch, of the federal government, to preempt state legislation, or to destroy the Balance of Powers, which is set forth in the United States Constitution.

10) This Act shall serve as a Notice and Demand to the Federal Government to cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their designated constitutionally enumerated powers, and, which attempt to diminish the Balance of Powers as established.

11) To enforce constitutional Balance of Powers, The Joint Legislative Committee on Neutralization of federal laws is established consisting of the President of the Senate or the President’s designee, who serves as co-chairperson, six(6) members of the Senate who are appointed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Speaker’s designee who serves as Co-chairperson, and six(6) members of the House of Representatives No more than four (4) members of the Senate and no more than four (4) members of the House of Representatives may be from the same political party. Members shall serve two (2) year terms beginning and ending on the convening of the regular session of the Legislature each odd-numbered year. Further, a majority of the members constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Committee shall meet on the call of either co-chairperson.

The Committee shall recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to neutralize in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution. The Committee shall make its recommendation within thirty (30) days after receiving the federal legislation for consideration and process.

Further, the Committee may review any and all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining the constitutionality. The said Committee may recommend for neutralization, existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders enacted before the effective date of this Section, if and when the Committee determines said measures to be beyond the scope and power assigned to the federal government under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, or in direct violation of the state constitution.

Upon the Committee’s recommendation for neutralization, the Legislature shall vote on whether to neutralize the action within sixty (60) days after the Committee’s said recommendation. Until the vote, the issue in question is of no effect. The appropriate documentation reflecting the Legislature’s vote shall be documented in the Journals of the respective Houses.

In the event that the state legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or Executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, the state, nor its citizens, shall recognize or be obligated to live under said statute, mandate or Executive order.

This Commission shall further be charged to communicate the intentions of this Act to the legislatures of the several states to assure that this State continues in the same esteem and friendship as currently exists, and, that it considers union for specific national purposes, and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states.

Once this Act has been enacted, a certified copy of the same shall be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives, each member of the States’ Congressional delegation, with the request that this Act be officially entered into the Congressional Record.

12) It is the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures that may become necessary to prevent the wrongful enforcement of any federal laws or regulations duly neutralized within the boundaries and limits of this State.

13) In accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states – In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court of the United States shall have Original Jurisdiction. In any cause of action between this State and the federal government regarding state neutralization of a federal legislation, judicial mandate or executive order, the proper jurisdiction for these disputes will lie with the Supreme Court of the United States alone. In the event of improper adjudication by the U.S. Supreme Court, the People’s interest shall be maintained and retained through State referendum.

14) Under the Tenth Amendment, the people and state of __________ retain their exclusive power to regulate the state of ____________, subject only to the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee, that the people and state of ____________ shall exercise such sovereign power in accordance with each citizen’s lawful privileges or immunities, and in compliance with the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law.

15) Whereas the ninth amendment to the United States Constitution secures and reserves to the people of ______________, as against the federal government, their natural rights to life, liberty and property as entailed by the traditional Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty and as secured by state law, including, but not limited to, their rights as they were understood and secured by the law at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, as well as their rights as they were understood and secured by the law in the state of __________ at the time the ____________ constitution was adopted on _____________________, the people and state hereby proclaim that the guarantee of those rights is a matter of compact between the state and people of _______________ and the United States as of the time that _______________ was admitted to statehood in ________________.

Model State Legislation

Researched and prepared by

Download PDF of this document. Contact Us. 

10 13 11 flagbar



Edwin Vieira on His New Book: The “Sword and Sovereignty”, and Where the US Went Wrong

February 10th, 2013 by


2-10-2013 1-53-49 PM

With Anthony Wile


The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Introduction: Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences) and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over 36 years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly work is The Sword and Sovereignty (2012). Previous works include Constitutional "Homeland Security" (2007), a proposal to begin the revitalization of the constitutional Militia of the several states; Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective; and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy" and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novelCRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes. 

Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. Let's jump right in with a discussion of your new book, The Sword and Sovereignty. Give us a synopsis, please. Where can people buy it?

Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to "the Militia of the several States," as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called "individual right to keep and bear arms" on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" exercised in the context of "well regulated Militia" is the Constitution's own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the very few commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.

In any event, The Sword and Sovereignty breaks down into four parts: First, an analysis of the correct manner of interpreting the Constitution. Second, an application of the rules of constitutional interpretation to the question of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in relation to "the Militia of the several States," elucidating the basic principles of the Militia through a thoroughgoing analysis of the pre-constitutional Militia statutes of the Colonies and independent States. Third, an application of the principles of the Militia, and especially of the duty (as well as the right) of all eligible Americans to be armed, to present-day problems of what is called "homeland security." And fourth, a warning that, should these principles not be applied in the very near future − immediately, if not sooner, as I like to put it − America will slip under the control of a national para-militarized police-state apparatus (which anyone with even the least insight should recognize is taking place at an ever-accelerating pace even as he reads these words). The book is heavily freighted with footnotes and endnotes identifying primary sources, so no one has to take my poor word alone for its premises and conclusions.

Daily Bell: What's the response been?

Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty was first made available in mid-December of 2012. It had to be put out on a CD in PDF format because there was insufficient interest shown among potential readers to justify producing a quality hardbound printed version (although that may become an option in the future). In light of the popularity of the subject matter of the book − the Second Amendment and related constitutional issues − that depth of disinterest really surprised me. But now, with all of the brouhaha over new, draconian "gun-control" legislation in the States as well as in Congress, the very slow sale of, and dearth of commentary about, the CD is more than surprising. It is shocking, even appalling. Especially so when more and more commentators, bloggers, and others on the Internet are recognizing, and correctly so, that the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters or target shooters, or even to enable individuals to protect themselves against common criminals but instead to enable common Americans to resist the political crimes of usurpation and tyranny. Which, I believe, the historical record proves beyond peradventure cannot be accomplished through the exercise of an "individual right to keep and bear arms," but rather demands collective action through "the Militia of the several States."

Daily Bell: What was the most interesting thing you discovered while researching the book?

Edwin Vieira: The extent and depth of the evidence for the construction of the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, whichThe Sword and Sovereignty lays out. Over the years, I have studied many aspects of pre-constitutional legal history; but as to no other matter is the historical record as complete, consistent and compelling as it is with respect to the Militia. The evidence supports the conclusions in the book beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far more than can be said about such matters taken as "legal gospel" today as the reach of the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review" or of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Daily Bell: What are some of the fundamental conclusions?

Edwin Vieira: There are far too many to compile here. The five most consequential for the average man's understanding of the present-day issue of "gun control" are that: (i) The maintenance of freedom depends inextricably upon the American people's collective participation in "well regulated Militia," not upon individual action; (ii) "A well regulated Militia" is composed of nearly all of the eligible adult residents in a State, who are required by law to serve; (iii) Every member of such a Militia (other than conscientious objectors) must be armed with one or more firearms, ammunition and accoutrements suitable for Militia service, all of which must always be maintained in his personal possession; (iv) Because two of the most important responsibilities of the Militia are to repel invasions by foreign countries and to put down domestic usurpation and tyranny by rogue public officials, every armed member of the Militia must be equipped with a firearm suitable for those specific purposes − which means a firearm equivalent to, if not better than, the firearms contemporary regular armed forces bear: that is, not just a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle in 5.56 x 45 (.223) or 7.62 x 39 caliber, but a fully automatic or burst-fire rifle, preferable in a caliber more effective than the latter calibers, such as 6.5 x 38 Grendel (which can be made to work reliably on an AR-15 or M-16 platform); and (v) because "the Militia of the several States" are State governmental institutions, no contemporary form of "gun control" can be applied to them or their members by either Congress or the States' legislatures. Rather, it is the duty of Congress and the States' legislatures to see that all members of the Militia are properly armed, not to any degree disarmed. That is, as to the Militia and their members (which includes essentially all adult Americans), all forms of contemporary "gun control," including those of the Feinstein and Cuomo patterns (to name two of the more infamous poster-children for "gun control"), are absolutely unconstitutional.

Daily Bell: From your perspective, a free people is an armed people?

Edwin Vieira: It has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal "perspective," or my "opinion," or my "view." The Constitution tells us, in no uncertain terms, that a "well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." This is a declaration of law and historical fact − as well as an admonition − set out in the supreme law of the land, and therefore from a strictly legal perspective to be accepted and acted upon. It is also a first principle or axiom of American political philosophy. Had I a different "perspective," "opinion," or "view," I should to that extent be an opponent of the Constitution. And if I were in a position to attempt to impose that different, anti-constitutional "perspective," "opinion," or "view" on the American people by enacting legislation and enforcing it against them through the threats and assaults of jack-booted, uniformed, para-militarized thugs, then I should be, as well, a traitor (in the strict sense in which the Constitution defines "Treason" in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1).

Daily Bell: How can people with guns hold off the tanks (or "non-lethal" weapons) of a repressive government?

Edwin Vieira: This is a complex question because it incorporates so many implicit, unexamined and likely false assumptions. It probably is true that, even though many in overall number, individuals acting only in isolation, without coordination or even a common plan, cannot hold off rogue armed forces or even police agencies that are armed only with small arms, let alone tanks and other heavy weaponry. But the desired goal is not necessarily to win an all-out, once-and-for-all nationwide firefight but instead to deter usurpation and tyranny at their onset and grind their perpetrators down even if they are initially successful.

If Militia exist which could effectively resist aspiring usurpers and tyrants to any degree for any length of time, the usurpers and tyrants will be compelled to think twice about attempting to repress the people. Indeed, under such circumstances, the regular armed forces and police may themselves fracture: some supporting the rogue regime, others supporting the people. And, in the long run, the armed forces and police that remain on the side of the usurpers and tyrants may prove unable to suppress the people, their supposedly superior weaponry notwithstanding.

Look at Afghanistan. In more than ten years, the armed forces of the United States and their puppet "coalition partners" have been unable to defeat a rag-tag people's army of cave-dwellers and primitive tribesmen armed with weaponry less effective than was used in World War I (no tanks, no planes, no heavy artillery, no poison gas and so on), in a land-locked country which receives no significant outside assistance.

Now, there are some 300 million people in the United States. Assume that 150 million are adults and that of these some 50 million, spread throughout a landmass than spans North America, would actively sympathize with and even personally participate in a resistance-movement. And remember that of these 50 million, most are already fairly well armed. The difficulty of suppressing this level of opposition, particularly when the resistance-fighters could directly attack the logistical support of the usurpers' and tyrants' puppet forces, would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.

Daily Bell: Do people need to form their own militias?

Edwin Vieira: If you mean do individuals need to form private militia, on their own, then the constitutional answer is an unequivocal NO. The constitutional Militia, "the Militia of the several States" incorporated in the original Constitution and the "well regulated Militia" to which the Second Amendment refers, are State governmental institutions or establishments. This is what imbues them with legal − indeed, constitutional − authority, which no private militia can possibly claim. Think about it: If the people on the south side of Main Street in Smalltown USA form their own private militia, and the people on the north side of Main Street form theirs, which one of them, perforce of its mere existence, can claim even a semblance of legal authority over the other, or over anyone else for that matter? Or are both of them − and any other armed groups that happen to coalesce in that area − of equal legal authority, so that no generally applicable system of law can be applied in that territory? In which case, one might conclude, there can be no legal authority there at all, just a multiplicity of Freikorps settling their inevitable differences by main force. Not a very pretty picture.

Daily Bell: What's your take on the current gun control controversy?

Edwin Vieira: The present controversy − at least as it is being mis-argued in the media, both mainstream and alternative − can basically be characterized as two huge gas-bags colliding head-on, but with no real harm possibly done by or to either because neither articulates the issue actually at stake.

If the problem is viewed from the constitutionally true perspective of the Militia, then "gun control" of the familiar contemporary variety must be seen as legally impossible and politically perverse. Any form of "gun control" is illegitimate, on its face, if its intent or effect is to any degree to disarm the Militia because the Second Amendment declares that "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State," any attack upon which is precluded (and therefore unreasonable) as a matter of law. And the original Constitution incorporates the Militia as integral components of its federal structure, with which neither the General Government nor the States may dispense. That is the end of the matter. Any other supposed merits or demerits of a particular "gun-control" proposal are simply irrelevant. If it undermines the Militia − as all contemporary "gun-control" schemes do, and are objectively intended to do − then such a scheme is out of bounds, absolutely and irretrievably. Period.

On the other hand, if the problem is viewed from the constitutionally false perspective of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," then "gun control" becomes a matter of what can be deemed "reasonable" in relation to something other than the maintenance of the Militia and "the security of a free State." Something, perhaps, with highly emotional appeal, such as guaranteeing the supposed "safety" of children from irresponsible, criminal, or insane individuals who somehow get their hands on guns. If "gun control" is aimed only at curtailing some vague "individual right" entirely separate from the Militia and the maintenance of "a free State" (which is inextricably tied to the Militia, not to any "individual right"), then why is it not perfectly "reasonable" to prohibit the possession of some sorts − indeed, many or even most sorts − of firearms, by some or even many sorts of putatively "dangerous" people, as long as individuals not within the prohibited classes are left with a few firearms with which arguably they can defend themselves as individuals against adventitious attacks by common criminals?

Why, the Feinsteins and Cuomos of this benighted country may ask with some semblance of cogency, does anyone "need" a supposedly dangerous semi-automatic rifle if he is not a member of an official institution with the responsibility to repel invasions (such as the Army) − which, according to the dogma of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," most individuals are not? Conversely, if one is a member of such an institution − as most adult Americans are (or should be) with respect to the Militia − then the question the Feinsteins and the Cuomos pose lacks not simply cogency but even logic and legitimacy. It becomes a question which might be asked appropriately in North Korea but never here in America.

Daily Bell: What's the most critical problem facing America right now? Previously you claimed it was authoritarianism and a growing police state.

Edwin Vieira: Claimed?! I have "claimed" nothing. As a political and legal scientist, I have observed and reported on my observations, which is an entirely different matter. Moreover, anyone who cannot and does not make the selfsame observations needs to have his political eyes examined.

America's national para-military police state is not simply "growing"; it hasgrown to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with "terrorists" or other "enemies," and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, everyAmerican − retains no rights, because the theory of "official assassinations" embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an "enemy combatant," then what limits exist to rogue public officials' powers? None. This is totalitarianism with a vengeance.

Daily Bell: We mentioned directed history the last time we spoke, and you indicated that in your view a "paper-money oligarchy" was at least one group organizing this kind of history. These are basically banking families and their enablers based in Britain and Europe with military and intelligence arms (along with other such families) in Israel and the US. Why are they busy in Africa creating wars? Is it because their credit scheme is in the final stages of Ponzi self-destruction, as you indicated? Has that advanced in the past two years?

Edwin Vieira: What I might describe as "intermediate Ponzi banking pyramids," based upon national or regional central banks − namely, the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank − are shaking themselves to pieces, as all such Ponzi schemes eventually must. As a result, "the paper-money oligarchy" will now try to salvage the basic system by elevating it to a global level with some sort of world central bank, perhaps based upon the IMF. This may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish if the Chinese, for example, cannot be cajoled or coerced into joining or at least acquiescing in such an operation. At present, that does not seem likely. The Chinese appear to be staking out a position based upon competition with, rather than complicity in, any new global paper-money-and-credit scam run by the "Western" elites. So those elites are taking defensive measures to shore up their position, based upon their realization that the purpose of all paper-money-and-credit schemes is not simply to manipulate paper "obligations," "claims," and misnamed "assets," but instead to redistribute real wealth from the unsuspecting members of society at large to the manipulators and their cronies and clients.

Ultimately, real wealth consists of human labor and natural resources. Africa is awash in critical natural resources; and the potential for enserfing its native populations as docile workers under puppet "governments" controlled by the "Western" elites makes those resources even more valuable. So the military conflicts in Africa now being billed as parts of "the war on terrorism" are actually parts of a "war of terrorism" intended to destabilize the region, introduce "Western" neo-colonialism and thus preempt the Chinese from obtaining an economic or political foothold in the area.

Daily Bell: We spoke about dominant social themes and how they are used by this power elite. What have you noticed about their fear-based promotions? Are they more powerful than ever or are they losing their power to convince?

Edwin Vieira: A little of both. We observe with the present orchestrated hysteria over "gun control" − all of which is based upon promoting irrational fear of and loathing for firearms amongst the general populace − that, although many Americans are being swayed by the elitists' propaganda and agitation, perhaps even more Americans are not: The more the elitists scream for radical "gun control," the more common Americans listen to the real subliminal message in these rants, and the more firearms and ammunition they amass.

On the other side, though, the elitists have successfully imparted a subtle twist to their propaganda and agitation: At first, "the party line" was simply that Americans must fear "terrorists" from abroad, and therefore must surrender some of their freedoms to a nascent national para-military police-state apparatus. To this was soon added the supposed necessity for Americans to fear "domestic terrorists" (such as their fellow countrymen who support the Constitution, advocate the restoration of sound money and possess firearms), coupled with the necessity for Americans to surrender even more of their freedoms to a burgeoning police state. Most recently, the theme has shifted to the utterly discordant note that Americans must fear their own "government" most of all but can do nothing about its ever-more-abusive inroads into their remaining freedoms because, with all of the political, economic, and military power at its disposal, "the government" cannot be effectively opposed, no matter what excesses it may commit.

This at least has the advantage of bringing the discussion into concordance with the true meaning of words, inasmuch as the very first definition of "terrorism" in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (the standard reference for American English) as well as in The Oxford English Dictionary(the standard reference for English generally) is none other than "governmentby intimidation." But it also points up the psychotic nature of the "national debate" being foisted upon us: namely, that (at least according to the elitists and their touts) Americans' only defense against "terrorism" is to acquiesce in the worst sort of "terrorism." If this is not the best argument for revitalizing "the Militia of the several States," immediately if not sooner, then what is?

Daily Bell: What is a nation? Are they necessary?

Edwin Vieira: These are typical of open-ended questions the complete answers to which would require volumes. Suffice it to say here that nations must have been sufficient, if not absolutely necessary, for some historical purposes of general significance, or they would never have arisen let alone assumed such importance throughout the world. Today, if they did not already exist, they should be created for the specific purpose of opposing globalism.

True, throughout history many nations have been guilty of all sorts of crimes and other wrongdoing. But because of the multiplicity of nations, various "alliances" and "balances of power" among them have tended to deter, defend against, or mitigate many of the worst potentials and consequences of nationalistic hubris, aggression, imperialism and kindred disorders. Under a globalist regime, conversely, such "alliances" and "balances of power" will, by hypothesis, be impossible. For that reason, a globalist regime will usher in the possibility − and, I should suspect from the plans and pronouncements of contemporary globalists themselves, the likelihood − of the most horrific tyranny from which mankind has ever suffered.

There being no other effective defensive measures that can be interposed against globalism in time to interfere with its proponents' schedule, nations and national sovereignty are necessary. That is especially true with respect to Americans, in particular. For our Declaration of Independence announced that Americans have "assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The last time I looked, the Declaration of Independence had not been rescinded.

Daily Bell: Is it possible the Colonial period was merely a prelude to globalism? In other words, that nations had to be created before globalism could occur? Too paranoid?

Edwin Vieira: I should think such a conclusion would go far beyond paranoia. Do you mean to suggest that globalism is a consciously elaborated project, going back literally centuries, in which one intermediate stage has been the creation of independent nations for the very purpose of destroying those nations at some indeterminate time in the future? If so, who are this project's original architects? And how have they recruited followers true to the cause over the centuries? What is the evidence for such speculations? Are we to give credence and credit to (say) the musings of such as Francis Bacon, who proposed the establishment of "an universal republic" several hundred years ago?

To be sure, the contemporary globalist movement can attempt to take advantage of the existence of nations, which provides possibly ready-made building-blocks for the construction of some globalist edifice − as, for instance, by incorporation of individual nations into a multi-national organization such as the United Nations which can serve as a predecessor to the final globalist structure. This, however, is as likely to be historical happenstance − nations are available for such use, so why not use them − as it is to be the result of some long-range plan the origins of which are obscured in the mists of time.

Nations, moreover, are obviously two-edged swords in this duel for political power between themselves and the globalists. True enough, nations could conceivably be finagled into becoming stepping-stones to globalism, by coopting them in international organizations, then transmogrifying those organizations into supra-national organizations, then simply eliminating the nations as independent sovereignties, then wiping out international borders and their political, economic, and legal significance entirely − especially if traitorous political leaders could be coopted, bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise convinced or coerced to connive or cooperate with the globalist steering-committee. But the various nations' peoples, and even some of their political leaders, also might balk at being dragooned into a globalist regime that reduces them to pawns on the elitists' political chessboard; and they might then assert national sovereignty − and the legal, political, economic and especially military power that goes with it − in forcible opposition to globalism.

Daily Bell: The power elite uses false flags to promote global control. Is one of their goals gun control?

Edwin Vieira: Always. As Mao Tse-tung correctly observed. "[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Second Amendment makes the same point but with a special political and ethical gloss: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In America, the guns are supposed to reside in We the People's hands, in order that "a free State" − not "a police state" − may be maintained. So, for Americans in particular to be brought under the globalists' control − a boot stamping on a human face forever, as Orwell described the situation in his novel 1984 − they must first be disarmed, as other peoples subjected to oppression throughout history have been disarmed.

"False flags" − in the sense of shocking events, sometimes manufactured, sometime perhaps spontaneous − have become the preferred vehicles today for stampeding the populace into "gun control" of one variety or another. It is almost as if the political actors were working off the same dog-eared B-movie script in scene after scene. Which, thankfully, is why these "false flags" are becoming increasingly less credible, and the American people increasingly less credulous.

Daily Bell: Was Barack Obama re-elected legitimately or was there a lot of voter fraud?

Edwin Vieira: Doubtlessly voter fraud was pervasive in the last election, as it has been in many others, to the disgrace of this country. More to the point, however, is whether Barack Obama was even constitutionally eligible to stand for election or re-election in the first place. Did his putative father's British citizenship (as a resident of Kenya) disqualify Obama as a matter of law, even if in fact he was born within the United States? Did he become an Indonesian citizen when he was relocated there as a child; and, if so, did he as an adult ever reassert his supposed American birth-citizenship when he returned to the United States? As an adult in the United States did he seek educational benefits on the basis that he was a foreign student?

Why are these and related questions not being asked, let alone answered, either in Congress or in the courts? How is it that you and I must submit to a comprehensive background check before we can purchase a single firearm, but this fellow, whose origins, peregrinations and other personal details are purposefully being sequestered from public scrutiny at very great expense in attorneys' fees, can have his finger on the proverbial "nuclear trigger" and thereby threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and no one in public office seems to be concerned?

Daily Bell: What was your feeling regarding Ron Paul's campaign? Were you surprised at the way it ended?

Edwin Vieira: I was hardly surprised at the manner in which the Republican Party big-shots systematically stabbed Ron Paul in the back. I was disappointed, though, that after such shoddy treatment Dr. Paul did not bolt from the Republican Party and run for the Presidency on a "fusion ticket" composed of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other splinter-parties that might have created the foundation for a true second party in this country, as well as consigned the Republican Party to the dustbin of history once and for all. Such a "fusion ticket" might not have won the 2012 election, just as the original Republican Party did not win the first Presidential election it contested in 1856. But, once formed, "the fusion ticket" could have become a formidable force in 2016 and thereafter. Now, the necessary work has to be begun all over again.

Daily Bell: Will there be a successful states' rights movement − or even secession?

Edwin Vieira: I believe that "secession" − the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance − is unconstitutional. I have a long series of articles on this subject posted in my archive at Newswithviews.com. And even if such a form of "secession" were not unconstitutional, or some other arguably legal form of "secession" were tried, the exercise would be futile at the present time because no State is prepared to deal with the primary consequences of "secession." How, for example, could a State successfully "secede" economically if she remained tied to the Federal Reserve System's phony regime of paper currency and unlimited bank credit? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to adopt an alternative currency entirely independent of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury Department. Has that been done anywhere? No.

Moreover, how could a State expect to "secede" politically if rogue agents of the General Government could enter her territory at will and attempt to enforce that government's statutes, regulations and executive orders on her citizens? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to revitalize her Militia, in order to be able to interpose against such assaults on her own sovereignty and on her people's lives, liberties, and property. But has that been done anywhere? Again, no. So in the absence of these necessary preliminary steps (and many others, too), talk of "secession" is plainly little more than the expulsion of hot air.

The assertion of the States' special constitutional status within the federal system − what is often described as "States' rights" − is another matter, though. Many opportunities for asserting the States' special status now exist. The problem, of course, is that the General Government's courts are ready, willing and able to attempt to nullify these assertions of federalism by invoking an overly expansive misconstruction of the Constitution's "supremacy clause" (Article VI, Clause 2). So if the States are serious about protecting and promoting their rights and the rights of their people, at some point in the near future they will have to reject the notion that the General Government's courts, or any department of that government, or all of them acting in unison, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. Indeed, this should be obvious. The General Government is merely the agent of the people, not the people's master. The people are the principal. On what theory of agency is the principal required to accept the agent's unilateral, self-serving and possibly corrupt determination of what the agent's powers are, thereby effectively subordinating the principal to the agent? To be sure, this is the twisted formula usurpers and tyrants invariably employ in drawing all powers to themselves, at the expense of the people. But to contend that it is a principle, precept, or permissible interpretation of the Constitution is at best a nice piece of effrontery to which no American should give credence, if not a rotten piece of political treachery, which every American should condemn and oppose.

Daily Bell: You were a bit doubtful of the Internet's effect last time we spoke, saying it was full of misinformation. What's your take on that now?

Edwin Vieira: As far as I can tell, that particular problem has become worse. Today, the Internet is inundated not only with misinformation posted by the ignorant and the insouciant but also with carefully crafted disinformation posted by professional trolls and agents provocateurs. That does not mean that useful information is not to be found but only that one must use a very great deal of discernment in uncovering it, particularly if the subject is politically "controversial" (that is, runs against the grain of the elitists' party line). The great value of the Internet remains, however, that unlike books, which are costly and time-consuming to print and then may not be immediately accessible to the people who need to read them, the Internet allows for the almost instant posting and retrieval of information. So I remain cautiouslyoptimistic.

Daily Bell: What's going on with Afghanistan? It doesn't appear that the war is going well for the elites.

Edwin Vieira: Except, of course, with respect to the reintroduction of the cultivation of and trade in opiates, which seems to be a smashing success. As I pointed out earlier in this interview, however, the quagmire in Afghanistan does give the lie to the elitists' claim that rebellious peoples will always be helpless in the face of the modern technology, which contemporary armed forces can deploy against them.

Daily Bell: Any news on the martial law front as regards the US? Does Obama have it in mind? Would law enforcement cooperate?

Edwin Vieira: I doubt that Obama, personally, has anything in mind with respect to "martial law" (or any other subject you might mention). His handlers, however, doubtlessly are considering the invocation of some variety of "martial law" if the banking and financial systems collapse, with subsequent economic stringencies, social dislocations and civil unrest and disobedience spreading throughout America. And they are not reluctant to have their mouthpieces suggest in various fora the possibility or even likelihood of "martial law," doubtlessly in order to condition common Americans into acquiescing in its inevitability. A chapter in The Sword and Sovereignty deals in great detail with the question of "martial law" in all of its ramifications. The bottom line is that the type of "martial law" commonly presented as a political possibility in America is actually a constitutional impossibility, and would be a practical impossibility were "the Militia of the several States" revitalized.

Would "law enforcement" cooperate in the imposition of such unconstitutional "martial law"? Surely some would, simply to continue to receive their paychecks. And the extent of "police brutality" throughout this country, documented in often terrifying videos on the Internet, evidences the existence of all too many "law enforcement officers" who are ready, willing and able to oppress their countrymen with almost lunatic outbursts of violence that result in unpunished official homicides (or, as the vernacular has it, "death by cop"). "Martial law" would provide these psychopaths with the opportunity to vent their animalistic rage on a very wide scale. Here, too, as The Sword and Sovereignty explains, the solution to the problem would be revitalization of the Militia.

Daily Bell: What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts's decision regardingObamacare?

Edwin Vieira: Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination, if I may be allowed a juxtaposition of letters in order to make a play on words. Roberts held that the so-called "individual mandate" in "Obamacare" − the supposed requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance which they do not want, or be penalized for their refusals − could not be sustained under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause. Fine. That means that no substantive constitutional power exists that can rationalize that provision in "Obamacare." But then he opined that, notwithstanding the absence of any such substantive power, "the individual mandate" can be enforced as a "tax." What is the result of this aberrant reasoning? Namely, that Congress may, through the imposition of a "tax," coerce Americans into behaving in any manner whatsoever, even though it admittedly enjoys no particular power to require such behavior. Furthermore, as we know, taxes are often enforced not only by the confiscation of money or other property but also by imprisonment. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!

Obviously, this is far worse than the constitutionally crackpot notion that Congress can "regulate commerce" by coercing Americans to engage in "commerce" against their wills; for at least some forms of personal behavior do not constitute "commerce" (or even, to use the judiciary's gibberish, "affect commerce") by anyone's definition, and therefore could never be subject to such a ludicrous misconstruction of Congressional power. Roberts's "tax" theory, in contrast, embraces every conceivable form of behavior known to man, all of which can be compelled by the imposition of some "tax," and in the final analysis by imprisonment. Thus, appealing to just one clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), Roberts has concocted a rationalization for a complete totalitarian state! Even Alexander Hamilton, the most consistent and candid centralizer among the Founding Fathers, would have repudiated this theory in no uncertain terms. Even Stalin, I suspect, would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) to discover that the power to tax, by itself alone, could be so employed. If this is not a perfect illustration of the utter imbecility of "judicial supremacy" − the notion that decisions of the Supreme Court control the meaning of the Constitution − nothing could be.

Daily Bell: Is the central banking system beginning to fail? Will it self-destruct? Is a global currency going to be established in the near future? Will it feature a commodity like gold?

Edwin Vieira: Yes, the present central banking system is in the process of catastrophic failure. And this is a matter of self-destruction because the problem derives from the inherent unworkability of fiat currency and fractional reserves, not simply from the incompetence of the particular individuals appointed to manage the system from time to time. Which is why the Money Power intends to introduce a new currency in the near future, just as in America the Money Power supplanted State bank notes with National Bank Notes in the 1860s, folded the National Banking System into the Federal Reserve System in 1913, then reneged on redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in 1933 (domestically) and 1971 (internationally).

The formula has always been the same: As the paper-money and bank-credit scam implodes at a lower level, give the scheme a new lease on life by translating it to a higher level. But, in each case, the translation has required the promise − albeit one made to be broken − that the new currency will somehow be more stable than the one it replaces. So in a world increasingly disenchanted with and suspicious of irredeemable paper currencies, expect the new global currency to have some sort of gold veneer applied to it, so as to inspire unwarranted confidence amongst those uneducated in the long-term twists and turns of monetary and banking fraud.

I doubt, however, that the new scheme will allow for actual redemption of the new paper currency in gold for individuals (as did the Federal Reserve System prior to 1933) or even for central banks (as did the Federal Reserve System between 1933 and 1971), for the very last thing the Money Power wants is for individuals to recognize that gold itself is money, that paper currency is not really money at all but only an oft-repudiated promise by the bankers to pay gold and that the only true monetary security for any individual demands that he should always enjoy the legal right and should always exercise the physical ability to hold his own gold in his own hands whenever he so desires. Nonetheless, the integration of gold into the new system will gull many proponents of sound money into supporting the scheme. "See," they will crow, "the bankers have been forced to return to a 'gold standard'. We have won!" And that approbation will enable the bankers to impose upon the entire world another century or so of monetary manipulations, redistributions of wealth, Ponzi pyramids and associated financial frauds and other chicanery. Every time I hear some purported champion of sound money call for returning the Federal Reserve System to a "gold standard," or for adopting a supra-national paper currency linked to a "gold standard," I wonder how it is that one hundred years of sorry experience with the Federal Reserve System has taught these people absolutely nothing.

Daily Bell: What can one do on an individual level to combat the elite matrix that has been built around is?

Edwin Vieira: For starters, never passively accept that people in "authority" actually have the "authority" they claim. Never take at face value anything people in "authority" may say. Always investigate the nature of their "authority," verify or falsify the purported bases for their "authority" and try to predict the likely untoward consequences of their exercises of "authority." Hold all of their assertions and applications of "authority" up against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and carefully gauge whatever disparities become apparent − and there will be many of them, you can be sure.

Daily Bell: Finally, are you more or less worried because of Obama's re-election?

Edwin Vieira: I can supply no really satisfying answer to that question. On the one hand, that Obama received a majority of the votes could evidence a profound and dangerous split in the electorate between (i) the remnants of the population that still embrace semi-traditional American political values and (ii) an emergent, aggressive "social-democratic" bloc (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism with a temporary human face). On the other hand, that Obama was running against Romney tends to dilute that concern because an approximately fifty-fifty split between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be interpreted to signify no more than that the electorate was basically indifferent to the candidates, insufficiently aware of the issues, inclined to vote more in line with evanescent media "spin" than with permanent ideological convictions and above all, inured to the political status quo.

Yet one's hopes cannot be overly sanguine when one considers the likelihood (indeed, arguably the certainty) of a major national economic catastrophe breaking out within the next two or three years, and the already demonstrated propensity of Obama's handlers to cause him to employ extra-legal devices, from sweeping executive orders to "official assassinations," as a matter of course in "crisis" situations. Moreover, that Obama cannot seek re-election and therefore personally has nothing more to gain or lose politically, can only exacerbate the situation.

As the Chinese are wont to say, the next few years will be "interesting times," indeed.

Daily Bell: Congratulations on your new book. Thanks!




We've been doing this for 20 years or more and never have we run into this level of constitutional literacy – an understanding of REAL history married to growing anger as this remarkable litany of responses progresses.

Fortunately, we believe we have the kind of audience that shall appreciate what we'd characterize as a kind of tour de force.

Like someone launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed as Dr. Vierra takes to the sea with waves breaking timidly around him. This is a surprising spectacle. He makes the ramblings of supposed "constitutional scholars" such as Barack Obama look like the disconnected babble of infants.

Journalism is like yesterday's newspapers, useful only unto the day. It is forgotten by tomorrow, as we all shall be. But perhaps Dr. Vierra shall not be forgotten. He is REALLY bearing witness to America's decent into fascism and horror.

What is going on in the US will not end well – or not for many – for the perpetrators are motivated by humankind's worst characteristics: both greed and fear. They are greedy for the spoils of power but scared their actions shall be revealed.

And, of course, what we call the Internet Reformation is recording every aspect of their behavior.

Dr. Vierra and a few others like him are its scribes.

This bloody globalist episode will pass one day and a New Time will arrive. People will turn to Dr. Vierra among others to understand what went wrong and how and why.

We have listened to Dr. Vierra and thus have the melancholy privilege of knowing in advance.


Finally, a reputable web site has picked up on the one man in America who is worth listening to, and I for one have his new book and find it compelling beyond expression. I have not finished it, and have been waiting on someone with more credibility, and volume of readers to get the ball rolling. News With Views has done a remarkable job of supplying Vieira’s work, and now, no doubt, many more will follow suit. If the reader is sick of my bellyaching, and confused from having so many subjects thrown at them, this one PDF book will put you straight on all that is required to restore America to a land worth investing your future in. Dr. Vieira’s book is to America what the Bible is to Christian’s, and all people everywhere who love liberty.

Long live the

Militia of the several States



The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com.

10 13 11 flagbar



February 9th, 2013 by


By Lee Duigon


Crazy people shouldn’t have guns. Everybody agrees with that. But what if someone isn’t crazy when he buys the gun? Or maybe he is crazy, but you can’t tell because he hasn’t done anything crazy yet.

No problem—just make a law that says everyone who wants to buy a gun has to pass a sanity test first. Congress seems receptive to that idea. Why not? They could set up an enormous bureaucracy to administer the tests, keep records, do follow-up, etc. So many new government employees! So many public employee pensions! So many Democrat votes.

But why should you have to be demonstrably sane to buy a hand gun, when any slobbering psycho or cement-headed oaf can be elected president and have a whole nuclear arsenal to play with? Not to mention soldiers, fighter jets, warships, and tanks.

Why do we allow lunatics, dolts, whoremongers and other perverts to serve in Congress, where they can do almost as much harm as a batty president? You don’t think sane people saddled America with a $16 trillion debt, do you? Sane people don’t hire left-wing think tanks to write 2,500-page laws and then enact them without even reading them. Surely you don’t think normal people have uncontrollable urges to dictate to millions of other people what kind of light bulbs they can use. And who but a loon would ever say the primary mission of the United States armed forces is to fight Global Warming? I’ve never attended a session of Congress, but if I did, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see the members overturning bowls of spaghetti on their heads while making barnyard noises. I’d leave my wallet home, too.

How about requiring a psychiatrist’s OK for anyone who wants to teach or be an administrator at a college? Our universities are chock-full of nutty professors and dizzy deans. They’re also full of daffy degree programs—women’s studies, queer studies, black studies, chicano studies, hole-in-the-head studies: all guaranteed 100 percent useless. Young people who earn degrees in these subjects are also useless.

Of course, the whole idea of virtually everyone going to college was pretty loopy in the first place. Not that many people have a bent for scholarship. But how else are you going to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of prats disguised as intellectuals? And how many of these would actually pass a psychiatric examination?

Before you argue that a passel of pinheads spouting pseudo-intellectual hogwash does no real harm to anyone, consider this. The students whose heads have been stuffed full of that hogwash are the voters who elect other kooks to high public office. You haven’t already forgotten “Occupy Wall Street,” have you? How much of that do you think America can stand?

As long as we’re on the subject of doing real harm without actually shooting a gun or enacting bird-brained laws that wind up costing the country untold billions of dollars, we might also do well to insist on psychological fitness tests for persons who practice what we still call “journalism.” Is there any doubt that the ranks of this profession are densely packed with fruitcakes? What sane individual, after turning himself inside-out all day to conceal the sheer ineptitude and malice of our leaders, can grin at his reflection in the mirror and say, “There stands an honest man”? Walter Durante of The New York Times—some things never change—won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the crimes of Josef Stalin. Could he have passed a rigorous sanity test? Are we sane for basing our votes on information provided by such persons? And what about “Newsweek,” recently, proclaiming the current dunderhead in the White House as “the Second Coming”—presumably of Jesus Christ: I can’t think of anyone else who has a Second Coming. Is that cozy enough for you?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, about one in four Americans, 57.7 million people, suffers from some form of mental illness during any given year. That’s a lot of mental illness. Happily, we have more than 550,000 mental health professionals on hand to treat it. We can’t help wondering how effective they are, or what good it would do to hire another half a million of them to make sure prospective mental patients don’t buy guns.

With or without treatment, one way or another, most people recover from their mental illness. The rest go into teaching, journalism, or politics—and write gun laws.

© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved

Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com

Website: LeeDuigon.com

E-Mail: leeduigon@verizon.net

10 13 11 flagbar

It Has Happened Here: The Police State Is Real

February 8th, 2013 by

Paul Craig Roberts 

Institute for Political Economy


The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document. 

Whether a person believes the official story of 9/11 which rests on unproven government assertions or believes the documented evidence provided by a large number of scientists, first responders, and structural engineers and architects, the result is the same. 9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has. 
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state: the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard–based on intentional lies, the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process, the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials, the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process. 
As if this were not enough, the Obama regime now creates new presidential powers by crafting secret laws, refusing to disclose the legal reasoning on which the asserted power rests. In other words, laws now originate in secret executive branch memos and not in acts of Congress. Congress? We don’t need no stinking Congress.
Despite laws protecting whistleblowers and the media and the US Military Code which requires soldiers to report war crimes, whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Kiriakou, media such as Julian Assange, and soldiers such as Bradley Manning are persecuted and prosecuted for revealing US government crimes. 


The criminals go free, and those who report the crimes are punished. 

The justification for the American police state is the “war on terror,” a hoax kept alive by the FBI’s “sting operations.” Normally speaking, a sting operation is when a policewoman poses as a prostitute in order to ensnare a “John,” or a police officer poses as a drug dealer or user in order to ensnare drug users or dealers. The FBI’s “sting operation” goes beyond these victimless crimes that fill up US prisons. 

The FBI’s sting operations are different. They are just as victimless as no plot ever happens, but the FBI doesn’t pose as bomb makers for terrorists who have a plot but lack the weapon. Instead, the FBI has the plot and looks for a hapless or demented person or group, or for a Muslim enraged over the latest Washington insult to him and/or his religion. When the FBI locates its victim, its agents approach the selected perpetrator pretending to be Al-Qaeda or some such and ply the selected perpetrator with money, the promise of fame, or threats until the victim signs on to the FBI’s plot and is arrested. 

Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s War on Terrorism, documents that the FBI has so far concocted 150 “terrorist plots” and that almost all of the other “terrorist cases” are cases unrelated to terrorism, such as immigration, with a terror charge tacked on.



The presstitute American media doesn’t ask why, if there is so much real terrorism requiring an American war against it, the FBI has to invent and solicit terrorist plots.

Neither does the media inquire how the Taliban, which resists the US invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the US superpower to a standstill after 11 years, came to be designated as terrorists. Nor does the US presstitute media want to know how tribesmen in remote regions of Pakistan came to be designated as “terrorists” deserving of US drone attacks on the citizens, schools and medical clinics of a country with which the US is not at war.

Instead the media protects and perpetrates the hoax that has given America the police state. The American media has become Leni Riefenstahl, as has Hollywood with the anti-Muslim propaganda film, Zero Dark Thirty. This propaganda film is a hate crime that spreads Islamophobia. Nevertheless, the film is likely to win awards and to sink Americans into both tyranny and a hundred-year war in the name of fighting the Muslim threat.

What I learned many years ago as a professor is that movies are important molders of Americans‘ attitudes. Once, after giving a thorough explanation of the Russian Revolution that led to communist rule, a student raised his hand and said: “That’s not the way it happened in the movie.” 

At first I thought he was making a witty joke, but then I realized that he thought that the truth resided in the movie, not in the professor who was well versed in the subject. Ever since I have been puzzled how the US has survived for so long, considering the ignorance of its population. Americans have lived in the power of the US economy. Now that this power is waning, sooner or later Americans will have to come to terms with reality.

It is a reality that will be unfamiliar to them. 

Some Americans claim that we have had police states during other wartimes and that once the war on terror is won, the police state will be dismantled. Others claim that government will be judicious in its use of the power and that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

These are reassurances from the deluded. The Bush/Obama police state is far more comprehensive than Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, or Roosevelt’s, and the war on terror is open-ended and is already three times longer than World War II. The Police State is acquiring “squatter’s rights.” 

Moreover, the government needs the police state in order to protect itself from accountability for its crimes, lies, and squandering of taxpayers‘ money. New precedents for executive power have been created in conjunction with the Federalist Society which, independent of the war on terror, advocates the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president has powers not subject to check by Congress and the Judiciary. In other words, the president is a dictator if he prefers to be.

The Obama regime is taking advantage of this Republican theory. The regime has used the Republican desire for a strong executive outside the traditional checks and balances together with the fear factor to complete the creation of the Bush/Cheney police state.

As Lawrence M. Stratton and I documented in our book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, prior to 9/11 law as a shield of the people was already losing ground to law as a weapon in the hands of the government. If the government wanted to get you, there were few if any barriers to a defendant being framed and convicted, least of all a brainwashed jury fearful of crime.

I cannot say whether the US justice system has ever served justice better than it has served the ambition of prosecutors. Already in the 1930s and 1940s US Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland and US Attorney General Robert Jackson were warning against prosecutors who sacrifice “fair dealing to build up statistics of success.” Certainly it is difficult to find in the ranks of federal prosecutors today Jackson’s “prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.” 

Just consider the wrongful conviction of Alabama’s Democratic governor, Don Siegelman by what apparently was a Karl Rove plot to rid the South of Democratic governors. The “Democratic” Obama regime has not investigated this false prosecution or given clemency to its innocent own. Remember how quickly Bush removed the prison sentence of Cheney’s operative who revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent? The Democrats are a cowed and cowardly political party, fearful of justice, and as much a part of the corrupt police state as the Republicans. 

Today the purpose of a prosecution is to serve the prosecutor’s career and that of the party that appoints him or her. A prosecutor’s career is served by high conviction rates, which require plea bargains in which the evidence against a defendant is never tested in court or before a jury, and by high profile cases, which can launch a prosecutor into a political career, as Rudy Giuliana achieved with his frame-up of Michael Milken. 

Glenn Greenwald explained how Internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz was driven to his death by the ambition of two federal prosecutors, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann, who had no aversion to destroying an innocent person with ridiculous and trumped-up charges in order to advance their careers.



It is rare for a prosecutor to suffer any consequence for bringing false charges, for consciously using and even paying for false evidence, and for lying to judge and jury. As prosecutors are rarely held accountable, they employ illegal and unethical methods and routinely abuse their power. As judges are mainly concerned with clearing their court dockets, justice is rarely served in America, which explains why the US has not only a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country on earth, but also the largest absolute number of prisoners. The US actually has more of its citizens in prison than “authoritarian” China which has a population four times larger than the US. The US, possibly the greatest human rights abuser in history, is constantly bringing human rights charges against China. Where are the human rights charges against Washington?

In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.

Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.





In “freedom and democracy” America, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the operative legal principle. If the government says you are guilty, you are. Period. No evidence required for your termination. Even Stalin pretended to have evidence.

The United States government is working its way step by step toward the determination that any and every critic of the government is guilty of providing “aid and comfort” to Washington’s “terrorist enemies,” which includes the elected Hamas government in Gaza. The only critics exempted from this rule-in-the-making are the neoconservatives who criticize the US government for being too slow to throttle both its critics and “anti-semites,” such as former US President Jimmy Carter, who criticize the Israeli government’s illegal appropriation of Palestinian lands. Most of Palestine has been stolen by Israel with Washington acquiesce and aid. Therefore, nothing is left for a “two-state solution.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine is illegal; yet, Washington, on which Israel is totally dependent, does nothing about law.

Law, we don’t need no stinking law.” Washington has might. Might is right. Get used to it.

Not only for Palestinians has law ceased to exist, but also for Americans, and for Washington’s NATO puppets in the UK and Europe, pitiful remnants of once great nations now complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity. The Open Society Justice Initiative, a NGO based in New York, has issued a report that documents that 54 governments are involved in Washington’s rendition and torture program. Twenty-five of the governments that help Washington to kidnap, disappear, and torture people are European.



The opening decade of the 21st century has seen the destruction of all the law that was devised to protect the innocent and the vulnerable since the rise of the now defunct moral conscience of the West. The West’s moral conscience never applied outside of itself. What happened to people in Europe’s colonies and to native inhabitants of the US and Australia is a very different story. 

Nevertheless, despite its lack of coverage to the powerless, the principle of the rule of law was a promising principle. Now America under Bush and Obama, two peas of the same pod, has abandoned the principle itself.

The Obama police state will be worse than the Bush/Cheney police state.

Unlike conservatives who in times past were suspicious of government power, Obamabots believe that government power is a force for good if it is in the right hands. As Obama’s supporters see him as a member of an oppressed minority, they are confident that Obama will not misuse his power. This belief is akin to the belief that, as Jews suffered so much at the hands of Hitler, Israel would be fair to the Palestinians.

Glenn Greenwald writes that “the most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice.”



This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments and murdering the dictators and their supporters.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list? 

Additional reading: The legal analysis in the article below written by seasoned attorneys shows that Obama is a tyrant. The point made by the attorneys is too clear to be debatable.  

 Assassin in Chief?



Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities.  It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president's order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.

As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority.  Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU's and New York Times' requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president's claim of unilateral powers.  While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents "implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men," she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them.  Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written aletter to president Obama asking for "any and all legal opinions" that describe the basis for his claimed authority to "deliberately kill American citizens."

However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.

On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force."  Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis.  It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.  Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution's Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of "targeted killing" of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized.  Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.

According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing.  First, "an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."  Second, capture is "infeasible."  And third, the " operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles."  Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.

Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts.  Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important "'realities' of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack," the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council's Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, "before using lethal force" on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country.  How very convenient.  The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king's courtiers. 

Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department's constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of  the Constitution.  When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys.  In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens "from new-fangled and artificial treasons … by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]”  To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in "open court" — not in some secret "war room" in an undisclosed location.  That same section of Article III requires proof by "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession" — not by a unilateral "determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States.”  Finally, as is true of “all crimes,” Article III, Section 2 requires “trial … by jury” on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified “high-level official of the U.S. government[,]" no matter how well-"informed" he may be.  In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.

These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department's own venerable precedents.  The White Paper relies on the "laws of war" — but laws of war do not control here.  On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee — serving under President John Adams — directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, "France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war."

It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning.  If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process — a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years. 

Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School.  Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration.  They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C.  They filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a preliminary injunction in the Chris Hedges challenge to the detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ("NDAA"), addressing the Treason Clause, and also filed an amicus curiae brief in that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  They can be reached at 

wjo@mindspring.com or twitter.com/OlsonLaw.


Extrajudicial Killing: Official US Policy

Stephen Lendman, Contributor

Activist Post

Since taking office, Obama headed America toward full-blown tyranny. He enforces Bush administration police state laws. He added more of his own. He governs like a tinpot despot. 

He targets free expression, dissent, whistleblowing, and other constitutional freedoms. He usurped diktat authority. 

He spurns civil protections, judicial fairness, and other fundamental rights. Abuse of power is institutionalized. 

By executive order, he authorized anyone indefinitely detained with or without charge on his say. He promised to close Guantanamo but keeps it open. He operates a secret global torture prison network. 

In January, Law Professor Jonathan Turley called America "no longer the land of the free," saying: 

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them 

If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

Post-9/11, constitutional rights no longer apply. Diktat power replaced them. Bush took full advantage. So does Obama. 

He governs extrajudicially. He claims the right to order anyone incarcerated indefinitely or killed on his say. US citizens are included. No reasonable proof is needed. No one anywhere is safe. 

He ordered outspoken Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed. He was a US citizen. He threatened no one. He lived in Yemen. He opposed US imperial lawlessness. He committed no crime. He's dead for supporting right over wrong. 

Others like him are vulnerable. No one's safe anywhere. There's no place to hide. Rule of law protections don't apply. Murder, Inc. was elevate to a higher level. It's official policy. Summary judgment targets state enemies. 

Obama decides who lives or dies. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He's got final kill list authority. Police states operate that way. America by far is the worst. It menaces humanity 

Democracy is a figure of speech. American never was beautiful and isn't now. Diktat power is policy. 
On February 5, The New York Times headlined "Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing US Citizens in Al Qaeda," saying: 

Administration lawyers turned jurisprudence on its head. They call it lawful to kill US citizens if "an informed high-level (government) official" says they belong to Al Qaeda and pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." 

A Justice Department "white paper" inverted inviolable legal principles. It's titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force." 

It's unsigned and undated. It's "the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view." It calls lawless killing without trial or evidence legal. 

Thresholds of evidence and just cause aren't discussed. Vague language substitutes. "Imminent" threats are highlighted. So is ill-defined "terrorism." 

Extrajudicial executive authority is usurped. Courts have no say. Nor does Congress. 

Twisted logic claims judicially enforcing "orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force." 

Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder made the case. He claimed America's lawful right to operate extrajudicially. He said Washington can kill US citizens affiliated with Al Qaeda if capture isn't possible.

'Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,' he said. 

In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.

Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces.

This is simply not accurate. 'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

In other words, the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, other inviolable international laws, constitutional rights, and US statute laws don't apply. 

With no evidence or justification whatever, Holder said "a small number of US citizens" plot attacks on America. Citizenship grants no immunity, he claims. They're fair game. They can be targeted and killed extrajudicially. 

Pentagon general counsel, Jeh Johnson, made the same case. He claims "(b)elligerents who also happen to be US citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives." 

The legal point is important because, in fact, over the last 10 years Al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part, migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven. 

Within the executive branch the views and opinions of the lawyers on the president’s national security team are debated and heavily scrutinized, and a legal review of the application of lethal force is the weightiest judgment a lawyer can make. 

And, when these judgments start to become easy, it is time for me to return to private law practice. 

ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi addressed the white paper. She calls it a "profoundly disturbing document. 

It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. 

It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority – the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer called the document "chilling." It manipulates legal standards. It turns them on their head. Doing so justifies the unjustifiable. 

ACLU said extrajudicial killings occur "with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required." 

America kills illegally. Rule of law principles are spurned. Transparency and openness are gone. Accountability no longer applies. Diktat authority usurped it. Doing so is unconstitutional. 

On February 5, the Center for Constitutional Rights responded to Washington's white paper. 

CCR's senior attorney, Pardiss Kebriaei said: 

This white paper’s claim of executive power is disturbing enough on its own, but it doesn’t describe the vast majority of targeted killings being carried out by the U.S. government, which now number in the thousands. 

The government claims the authority to target a US citizen who is a 'senior operational leader of Al Qa’ida or an associated force,' but it doesn’t provide an analysis that would explain, for example, the killing of our client’s grandson, 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al Aulaqi, nor does it describe the so-called signature strike killings of people whose identities are unknown but who fit some undisclosed profile. 

One of the most dangerous aspects of the white paper is the claim that 'there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations' either before or after a killing.

CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren added: 

The parallels to the Bush administration torture memos are chilling. Those were unchecked legal justifications drawn up to justify torture; these are unchecked justifications drawn up to justify extrajudicial killing. 

President Obama released the Bush torture memos to be transparent; he must release his own legal memos and not just a Cliffs Notes version for public consumption, particularly when scores of civilian lives are at stake. 

Despite this attempt to appear transparent, the program remains opaque. This will rightly raise many questions for John Brennan.

He was deeply involved in Bush administration rogue policies. He a key architect of Obama's targeted killing program. 

CCR filed suit (Al Aulaqi v. Panetta). It demands accountability "in a court of law." 

On February 5, a New York Timeseditorial headlined "To Kill an American," saying: 

Obama "utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review (extrajudicial killings) in advance, or even after the fact." 

Twisted logic defines administration policy. It exceeds the worst of George Bush. It includes a menu of lawless practices. 

Congress hasn't officially seen the white paper. White House officials won't acknowledge administration authority to kill Awlaki. They provided no evidence justifying it. 

"According to the white paper," said The Times, "Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave" Obama unchecked powers. 

Definitions aren't forthcoming. Vagueness substitutes for specifics. Due process and judicial fairness don't apply. Geopolitical priorities alone matter. 

The Times quoted Center for National Security Studies director Kate Martin calling the white paper "a confusing blend of self-defense and law of war concepts and doesn't clearly explain whether there is a different standard for killing a senior Al Qaeda leader depending on whether he is a citizen." 

"Its due process is especially weak." 

Congress needs to act. At stake are fundamental issues. They include balance of power and rule of law principles. They no longer apply. They need to be reasserted.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.



If the reader is still not convinced that we have a TYRANT in the White House, or simply does not care, then maybe someday you will be on a kill list by patriots. Best advice is wake the hell up!!! Real American’s are reaching the boiling point, and the scalding pot is hot!

10 13 11 flagbar


February 8th, 2013 by


Back in the seventy’s I owned a burglar alarm company in Gary Indiana, was permitted to carry concealed, and answered my own alarms due to slow police response time. The local cops in a 90% black City were more interested in their health than catching burglars. Considering their compensation, I don’t blame them. As a private entrepreneur, I was making three times their salary.

On many occasions, I had to detain thieves until the police showed up, and never once did I have to shoot someone, as I carried some very intimidating hardware when responding to alarms. A 1911 colt 45acp and a Remington pump 12ga was always enough to make simple burglars stand down. Even the cops were intimidated when they showed up.

Today, I have no doubt that I would be shot dead by the cops, who have been totally brained washed in the police academy. The attitude shown by the police today leaves no doubt in my mind that they have been assured they will not be prosecuted for such actions as are now commonly committed against the innocent citizens. Moreover, their attitudes towards citizens who make attempts to be friendly are insultingly rude.

This attitude change seems to be more prevalent in the younger generations of police officers, and the older generation seems to be very concerned by their apparent disregard for the Constitution for the United States of America, which has been changed to the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. If the reader does not see or understand the difference, you should read the archives of both my sites. http://anationbeguiled.com

and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com

Growing up during the 40s and 50s left a different impression on me than is common today, Back then I had the highest respect for the police, but today they seem to be Wanna Bee Killers. I will not deviate here and express my opinions on how this transformation occurred, but it is a reality nevertheless.

In my old mind there is nothing more disgusting than a traitor, be it a wife, husband, politician, or whoever, but for the people who we have been instructed are protecting us and our freedom, to consider us red meat to be killed at their pleasure just to enhance their standing between them and their peers is as dastardly as it gets. I have no respect in any amount for them and firmly state they should be boiled alive in raw sewage. Don’t tell me they are afraid of us because we have the freedom to be armed, that’s bull shit! These shit heads have one common dream, and that’s to be a feared member of the swat teem, all of which have managed to inspire fear in the hearts of their peers by their aggressiveness. I know from personal experience that it takes a hell of a lot of training to perfect that kind of skill and attitude. At 72 I can still put 17 rounds of 9mm in an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper as fast as I can pull the trigger at 35 feet, but one of the detectives in a neighboring town once showed me he could dive into the prone position and down one target before he hit the ground, and he made detective only because his chief rewarded him for his dedication to increasing his skill. He was not old enough to have gained the investigative experience of a detective.

Recently in this small community I live in, a burglar running from the swat teem was shot in the arm as the swat teem sprayed the community with lead. This resulted in complaints from the community for bullet holes in their homes and praise in the news-paper for the swat teems actions.

At the risk of killing some innocent civilian’s the swat teem apprehended a wounded a burglar, whoope! For all you who don’t recognize the degree of difficulty of hitting a running man while running yourself, I hope your ignorance will not put you in this position in the future because these tyrants are deadly serious at developing this skill. They are intellectually infected with the Rambo attitude.

Now let me express my opinion of the military version of this subject. Any dumb ass in any branch of the military who would fire on civilians protecting the document that protects us all is the lowest form of humanity ever to exist.

It is inconceivable to me that a soldier would fire on civilians or confiscate their weapons of self-protection, unless they were doing something really illegal, like robbing a store/home or setting fire to private property. I do not condone civil disorder, but there is a time when civilians must protect their selves and property, from whatever threat they are facing, be it government or hordes of thieves, and there is no excuse for soldiers who don’t know the difference. Soldiers, if you don’t care who you kill, you are a piece of shit in my book. And that’s the real reason why so many returning soldiers are committing suicide. They were brain washed into killing first and then asking questions.

Dear readers, this is not the kind of military I worshipped as a child! There is a real and honorable difference between hero’s and killers. If the present condition of our law enforcement and military is acceptable to the reader, may God have mercy on your soul, because I will not. When they come to get me they will face a really pissed off old man with the skill and hardware to require extra body bags. And I hope your son is one of them!10 13 11 flagbar


February 6th, 2013 by



By Michael LeMieux

February 6, 2013

In the United States, under a republican form of government, power is divided between the states and the central government. Within the central government, as is within the states, that power is further sub-divided between branches of the government. All of these government organizations have charters or documents that govern what power they have and the boundaries each organization must adhere to. The fundamental document outlining these powers and duties are the constitutions for their respective governments. Any action by these organizations that does not have a basis within their founding constitutions is unconstitutional and therefore constitutionally illegal.

In this article we will be dealing primarily with gun laws and the primary organization of the central government that enforces national gun laws the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The main areas I wish to present are the historical evolution of the ATF, their constitutional footing, and whether national gun laws are truly constitutional.

Evolution of the ATF:

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately, it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade.” The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Many people felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime. Pretty sneaky huh?

In 1968 the “Gun Control Act” was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15 Commerce and Trade? In fact even today the firearms laws deal, for the most part, in taxing control. Machine guns falling under the firearms control act are still legal to own if you do the background check and pay a $200.00 “tax stamp” fee.

However, the stated purpose of the act is as written states:

“Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance


“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void. And as a good friend of mine, Dave Champion, said “Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.”

So, in 1934 we have a “revenue” tax scheme that charges $200.00 for the sale or transfer of a machinegun, a short barreled rifle/shotgun, or a silencer. What was the net effect of this “revenue” tax scheme? It all but completely eviscerated these businesses, put people out of work, and resulted in a drop in tax revenue on the legitimate sales of these items. In 1934 a silencer could be purchased for 5-20 dollars at your local hardware store. But who would pay a $200.00 tax on a 5 dollar item. Many towns had shooting ranges in the city limits and required silencers to keep noise down for local residents. Most shooters could not afford the $200 tax stamp, so these businesses closed as well. So as a “revenue” scheme the Firearms Act was a complete bust unless you look at the evolutionary progress of the ATF in its expansion to control not only the firearms industry but also to become national crime fighters as well.

The ATF evolved from an arm of the IRS under title 15 “Commerce” to now being a part of the Department of Justice under title 18 “Crimes and Punishment.” I ask once again – under what constitutional authority? At least under title 15 the central government had a nexus to commerce as they originally only involved those individuals and businesses that were in the firearms trade. Today, however, someone who only possesses an item can be put in jail for not asking permission and paying tribute, even when they are not “in the business” of manufacturing or selling firearms.

There is no constitutional authority for the ATF as they are currently organized and only very limited constitutional authority as originally organized. As congress can only legally legislate those areas to which the states have seceded, as outlined in Article 1, section 8, all other laws are, by their very definition, unconstitutional. But because the government has the power of creating law they can enforce even unconstitutional laws – it does not make them right it only makes them wrong with a gun.

The concept of natural inherent rights within the body of the people is unique to the United States. All other countries today endow their citizens with varying degrees of “rights” and privilege. Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights. So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist.

Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government. You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence. The Constitution grants no rights to the citizens of this country and are listed as Amendments to the Constitution to PROHIBIT the central government from acting against these specific, enumerated, rights that were endowed in the citizenry before the government was created.

“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We already know that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government in its dealings with the people. What does it mean to be infringed? From the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 edition it reads: “1. obsolete: defeat, frustrate. 2. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Synonymous with trespass.” Based on this definition any action which attempts to make guns obsolete, or to defeat the ability of ownership, or frustrates the keeping and bearing of arms is infringing on the rights of the citizens and is an affront to the Constitution.

United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14th District in Texas, stated in a November 6th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:

“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.” (Bold added) You can read this entire article and more on his official web site.

I may be cast a heretic; but the fact of the matter is, laws are not meant to stop crime. In many cases laws create crime where none existed. An example would be what I call the stupidity laws, such as mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles or seat belts in cars etc. These “laws” tell us that the government knows what is best for you, and they will enforce their will upon you by writing laws to protect you from yourself. This is EXACTLY the mentality of a communist society and brute force is EXACTLY the methodology a communist government would use to make you do what they determine is best for you.

What crime is committed by possessing an object? Who or what is damaged? If I own an ice pick to break up blocks of ice and fill my ice chest – is that a crime? Yet I can use that ice pick to rob, damage, or kill another person. Would that person be any deader if I used a gun? There are more people killed each year in cars than with guns – should we limit the speed a car can travel to reduce its killing capability? In fact, more people are killed with hands and feet than with guns – should we have to register our limbs as well? I have known people who have never been in a car collision their entire lives. They are safe and effective drivers. I have likewise known many people who have owned guns and have never shot anyone.

Now the central government is attempting to unconstitutionally expand their power even more by trying to infringe further upon our God given rights by banning common weapons, invading the Fourth Amendment by forcing us into “trade” by mandating how we dispose of our private property at an added cost burden. And the very weapons they are trying to ban are very much a protected type of weapon as stated by the Supreme Court in US V Miller.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.”

The court reasoned that based on the information they had at the time a saw-off shotgun did not have “some reasonable relationship… of a well regulated militia” and that it was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” Well we have testimony from the Commander in Chief, Diane Feinstein, and a host of liberals in Congress that they are trying to ban the very same “military style weapon” that the Supreme Court said was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. But they want it both ways and the only conclusion we can make is that they do not care about the Constitution or for what it stands, and especially ANY limitation on their agenda.

Article 1 of the Constitution tells us how we can solve our crime problem within a year. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Every mass murder, every gun attack, drive by shooting, home invasion, car jacking, or any other such crime is already crime and the tool the criminal uses really does not change the crime. But if every second or third law abiding citizen was armed crime would very quickly dry up.

You, the “We the People” of our great nation are responsible for your own safety. The Sheriff the Policeman, even the entire judicial system, is only there to deal with the bad guy. Yes they drive around with a motto painted across the car saying “to Protect and Defend” but did you know that, by law, they have not responsibility to protect anyone? In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court ruled, and many others as well, that the only individuals that the police have a responsibility to protect are those that are incarcerated or restrained against their will such as prisoners or mental patients stating: "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

The gradual expansion of government to control the firearms industry to keep criminals out of the trade then expanded to tax ordinary citizens from owning certain pieces of equipment then expanded to everyone buying from a dealer and now expanding once again to encompass every law abiding citizen who has a gun even if they are not in firearm commerce.

But will this solve the problem? Well, as I have said before, if laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. Some may say that by banning these weapons (law) then they will not have them to use. If that were true prohibition would have been a success, the drug war would be over by now and our streets would be drug free. All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.

© 2013 Michael LeMieux – All Rights Reserved


As I have said many times before, all governments are nothing but force. They write their laws, and hire stupid people to enforce them, but that does not make them legal. To be legal one must be in conformity with God’s law, as all law presupposes a higher authority to enforce it, and there is no higher authority than God. We allow these tyrants to use brute force, instead of demanding their compliance with God’s law, so God disciplines us for our complicity. This is what happens when God’s people do not back Him up!

In his eyes, we are just as guilty as the government, because we allow it. We throw His name around like its some magic power, but don’t have the courage to believe He will support us if we defend Him. We are getting just what we deserve.


Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat. 

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

10 13 11 flagbar


February 6th, 2013 by


By Andrew C. Wallace

February 6, 2013

OBAMA IS A MULTIPLE PROVEN FRAUD AND CRIMINAL, as are all of the cowardly Judges and Elected Officials who refused to stop him with the Constitution. Every Order given, or Law signed by the Marxist Imposter will be null and void when he is removed from office.

Compromise between Marxism (Social Justice) and our Constitution (Equal Justice) is impossible. Compromise is defined as: “A middle way between two extremes.” There is no middle way because it is Treason, and any attempt to find one must fail by definition. Read “Compromise Is A Dirty Word” by Jim Schwiesow.

“In a Constitutional Republic, there is no right nor left, no far right, no far left; there are only those who believe in our form of government, as established, and those who do not” Lynn M. Stuter. Those who do not are simply Traitors, or ignorant followers of Traitors, known as low information voters.

Get Mad and Fight to End Income Taxes of any kind for a return to Full Employment, Unlimited Prosperity and Freedom without Marxism. All of which, is guaranteed by the ouster and prosecution for Treason of corrupt and cowardly Marxist and Muslim Traitors in government. This paper is a partial survey of our concerns as citizens, every word has meaning, and is a challenge.

An Unlimited supply of high paying jobs without a federal Income Tax, or any tax at all is guaranteed. This is the result of ending the Income Tax, private Federal Reserve Bank, and Tax Free Foundations as it was prior to 1913, while reinstituting Tariffs to support government and higher wages. Manufacturers must then produce here to sell here, and a reduced federal government must live on tariffs alone as in the past, no more taxes, none, as there will be no need. Most of our government debt was incurred to pay for unlawful expenditures, and should be paid by those who benefitted. We now have the largest supply of energy resources in the world to further guarantee our return to super prosperity. But, this prosperity is impossible under the Marxism of both political parties governing at the direction of the Criminal Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers.

Seventy percent of Government actions that are impoverishing and enslaving you are Unconstitutional Marxist Programs and must be terminated. Know this, most Government Officials, Judges and Employees, except for Whistleblowers, are corrupt or cowardly Traitors to our Constitutional Republic. These Traitors from both political parties, along with the Media, Public Employee Unions, Educational Institutions, and many Teachers take their orders and blood money from the very same “Establishment Elite Families and Fellow Travelers” who direct the Treason and theft by both political parties, all the major banks, tax free foundations, corporations, private federal reserve bank and the government

Most of this control and theft started in 1913 with the advent of the Private Federal Reserve Bank, the Income Tax and Tax Free Foundations. The first major result of these changes was the Great Depression which impoverished everyone but the elites who profited greatly by stealing and owning even more of the country. The Federal Reserve Chairman admitted that they caused the Great Depression. You should know they are enriching the Elites again at the people’s expense, but on a much larger scale of massive unconstitutional theft, along with destruction of our currency which will force most Americans into a much higher level of poverty and hunger than in the Great Depression.

The current, and ongoing failure of the housing and financial markets was caused by government in collusion with Financial Giants owned or controlled by the Establishment’s Elite Families. Government funds were unconstitutionally used to bail out these “too big to fail corporations” and to fund numerous companies as payback for campaign donations, then the companies promptly went bankrupt. The solution is to prosecute everyone who had anything to do with this Treason starting with the traitors in Congress who voted for it, and every other unconstitutional action.

To clarify, your Enemies, the Criminal Marxist Traitors to the Republic are: the “Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers”, who own or control the private Federal Reserve Bank, Tax Free Foundations, major Corporations and Banks, Media, Educational Institutions, many Teachers, Public Employee Unions, both Political Parties, and the Officials, Judges and Employees of a mostly Bogus and Unconstitutional government. Most of these people are corrupt cowardly Traitors to the Republic and must be prosecuted and relieved of their plunder…

We have no choice but to reduce the Federal Government by about seventy percent to its constitutionally authorized size, while prosecuting all the Criminal Marxist Traitors. We must use the Constitutionally Mandated “Militia of the Several States” for prosecution because the Federal Justice System and Judges are corrupt or cowardly. In an earlier time these Marxist Traitors would be summarily hung. During my lifetime, Marxist thugs have killed hundreds of millions of their own people and hundreds of thousands of Americans. There is absolutely, no indication that Marxists have repudiated their desired “Final Solution” for Patriots, so we must be prepared to respond to attacks by these traitors in kind, without quarter being asked or given.

I have sympathy and understanding for the poor slobs living in the Marxist inner city Killing Fields where Marxist policy deprives them of Family, God, Education, and Firearms, all of which are required for prosperity and freedom. They are falsely taught by the jailers they elect, and their poverty pimps to hate non blacks as the cause of their pain. But, they must instead look to their own ignorant juvenile mothers, absent fathers, elected officials, Media and Affirmative Action teachers for the causes. The thinking that, “If they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to breed”, Anonymous, and leave the results for others to support, guarantees continuation of a criminal mindset and third world lifestyle in accordance with Agenda 21. Non blacks will do them no harm unless attacked, and will continue to help those who will work, unless they join forces with the traitors in government to force non blacks to live and die as they do, and then they will truly have non blacks as enemies, which is the objective of the government’s Divide and Conquer Policy.

Businesses, and high Income Producers are moving from High Tax Marxist/Progressive States such as Illinois, California, and New York to avoid paying the taxes required to support armies of non working residents and unionized government employees. At some point the prosperous States will reduce their populations of non workers by reducing benefits and giving them non refundable bus tickets to the Marxist States where the voters will not allow Legislatures to reduce benefits.

Even though the “Rule of Law” is denied “We the People” by the Bogus Government, we will none the less use it as the primary guide for our actions to save our Republic, our freedom, and our return to prosperity. We will do this without firing a shot, provided the Marxist Traitors in the Bogus government don’t attempt to disarm, restrain, or attack even the least among us, then it would be war. If just one or two federal judges would allow one of the numerous Obama Eligibility, Selective Service Number, or Social Security Number Cases to be heard, much of this would all be over. If just one member in both houses of congress had questioned Obama’s eligibility, it would be over. As it stands, no Patriot can support a single government Official or Judge as they have ALL cowardly repudiated their Oaths of Office in acts of Treason.

Obama himself is neither the leader, nor only cause of this Marxist Treason, but he is certainly the current Criminal Face of the Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers who have directed the treason of both parties during the last 100 years. At some point, Obama will surely be tried for High Treason and numerous major crimes of a magnitude second only to that of Judas Iscariot.

Many compare Obama to Adolf Hitler, but that is an unfair comparison because Hitler was no one’s stooge, and did not need a Teleprompter to speak. Obama is really a Quisling, a collaborator with Establishment Elites, Marxists and Muslim enemies throughout the world to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

Now you can see why corruption and cowardice are indeed Treason. Most of what the “so called” Federal Government does is criminal and treasonous because “most of the government is Bogus and Unconstitutional”. Our Republic, as clearly, and closely defined by our Constitution is the only legitimate form of Government in this country. When officials, prosecutors and judges are corrupt or cowardly traitors you must call upon the “Militia of the Several States” to perform their constitutional duty to arrest and prosecute the traitors. If the Militia is not effective, pressure your State Government to make it so. We already know that election fraud has serious consequences that may lead to civil war. Based upon current opinion of the people a war against the Media and fraudulent operatives of the bogus government can be expected as the only option. Respected Thinkers throughout history have stated in various ways that if you deny people their perceived rights under the law, that the people will take their rights by force.

It is imperative for their own survival, that the Establishment’s Elite Families and their Fellow Travelers order their Marxist subordinates who run the Bogus part of Government, without regard for our Constitution, to comply with the Constitution and Rule of Law in all interactions with the People. Otherwise, there will be serous blowback If these traitors continue to follow the teachings in Hitler’s Mein Kampf to use the illegal power of the state to subdue our people. Due to actions by the Bogus government in the last four years, at least half of the people learned much of the truth about our Constitution and Unconstitutional Marxism, thus requiring massive voter fraud for the Marxists to win the last election, which has further enraged the people. Based upon what I know and learn every day, there is a growing hatred for this Bogus Marxist Government that would result in significant bloodshed if the people are attacked.

Patriots know that the Marxist officials, employees, and judges are criminals acting outside of the Constitution and have little or no legitimate authority. Many people detest the imposter and his cronies to such an extent that they can’t tolerate to even see or hear them on TV. People know that the election and most everything else of value was stolen.

The Bogus Marxist government has stolen and transferred approximately an additional 40%, or more of the people’s net worth in the last five years to the Criminal Elite Establishment while they are totally debasing our currency by printing unlimited quantities for their benefit. Unlimited printing of our currency is resulting in Hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar increasing the price of everything you buy to the point where the dollar will be worthless. Of course all government checks for Social Security, Medicare, Pensions, Food Stamps, Welfare, etc, will become worthless with the Establishment’s Elite Families owning most everything.

Not to worry, you won’t need the money because there will be no food in the stores to buy. If you live in the Marxist Inner Cities like New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago, Detroit, and LA, you will suffer Theft, Rape, Pillage, Murder, Pain, Starvation and Cannibalism while waiting for help from Marxist authorities who never come. Well, they might come as they have in the past for conservation purposes, to shoot you as a possible threat or for being worthless to their cause. People who live in the Marxist inner cities should leave now while they can.

People who support the Democrats must learn they are really supporting Marxism (Communism or Fascism), which has killed hundreds of millions of people while being an economic failure. Marxism is unconstitutional and based upon Social Justice, also known as Redistribution, stealing from some to give to others, where the state owns everything and controls all the details of your life without freedom. Marxism is Unconstitutional Treason in our Republic. Our Constitution is the law of the land and dictates Equal Justice or Equal opportunity for all with minimum interference in people’s lives, freedom, or property, the opposite of Marxism.

“The only way to equalize rewards is to take from those who have earned and give to those who have not.” Patrick J. Buchanan column 1-27-13. This is Unconstitutional Theft in Obama’s Marxist Fashion.

The Republican Party and the Democrat party are controlled by the SAME Establishment Elite Families. Neither political party can continue to exist if they do not divest themselves from the Establishment’s Elite Families.

Mass Unemployment and Economic Decline was caused by: 1.) Manufacturers moving to exploit low wage workers in other countries. 2.) Importing skilled workers who work for less. 3.) Allowing unskilled workers to invade our country and remain at taxpayer expense along with associated crime. 4) And lastly a severe shortage of low skilled English speaking workers because government benefits for not working exceed unskilled and entry level wages.

Foreign invaders must be stopped at the border with deadly force, those in the country must be deported and birthright citizenship ended. Our people must not be allowed to suffer from the loss of jobs, crime or cost of illegal’s remaining in this country. This is but another example of government treason for financial benefit of the Elites and their Fellow Travelers.

Any attempt to Confiscate or Control Firearms in the hands of “We the People” is an “Act of War” against the people, and will be resisted in accordance with the Rule of Law. The absolute, God given Constitutional right, and duty for citizens to protect themselves with firearms from criminals and government tyranny even predates the constitution. Our Police have neither the capability nor legal responsibility to protect us; they can only catalog the dead when we fail to protect ourselves. Gun Free Zones in schools and public places are nothing but unconstitutional Killing Fields for the demented to use. Crime is always reduced when citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. It has been proven repeatedly that any reduction in citizen ownership of firearms results in increased crime and tyranny. Therefore, the only reason for gun control by government is as a prelude to forced dictatorship, tyranny and death.

There are Sissy Men, Empty Headed Females and Trust Fund Babies in our country, with no grasp on reality, who refuse to handle a weapon to protect themselves, or to support the rights of others to do so. They are from the “Would Be Ruling Class”, indoctrinated by Marxist schools and parents to think they are superior and meant to control us common people. I mean these Useless Eaters no harm, but neither will I go out of my way to protect them.

Public funding of education thru the twelfth grade should be replaced with vouchers allowing students to go where they can get an education. Too many public schools are just not worth a damn. All public funding of universities and colleges should be terminated because 90% of the students will not benefit on the basis of Economic Opportunity Cost. With a proper high school education most students do not need a college education, a few really bright students could, but then a comparable faculty mostly does not exist. Donors to universities should lose any preferential treatment for taxes.

No one should be required to have a certificate, degree, diploma, test or anything else for employment unless everything required is directly related to performing the job in question. Most requirements for jobs exist to protect the positions of those already employed.

Following are some of the criminal problems with Judges:

 Judges kept Obama in office by using “Standing” to deny the opposition their legitimate day in court to question his lack of Constitutional qualifications. The legal concept of “Standing,” which is often abused by corrupt judges, can perform a vital function of determining who is entitled to be a party to legal proceedings.
 Jury Nullification is the jury’s Constitutional right to judge the law in criminal cases, and judges refuse to allow them to be so informed.
 Exculpatory Evidence is too often excluded by Judges resulting in conviction of innocent people. Remember Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Campion, et al?
 The law is more than what a Judge says.
 Denial of Discovery. Most famous was LTC Laken’s case where Pentagon Judge refused Discovery because it might embarrass Obama, so Laken was convicted.
 The Grand Jury was to be the most important protector of the common man against government abuse, where is it now?
 The Rule of Law must be everything in our Republic rather than next to nothing, for the alternative is war.

For those who think my words are too brutal, read “Classified Woman” by Sibel Edmonds and “Extreme Prejudice” by Susan Lindauer and you will no longer be naïve or think I am too harsh. For additional information, read any writers forNewsWithViews.com.

© 2013 Andrew Wallace – All Rights Reserved

Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing.

E-Mail: natlmktg@gte.net

10 13 11 flagbar


A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

February 5th, 2013 by


After a getting a "WARNO" previously, ASMDSS and Stolen Valor received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as these are Active and Retired members. Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.

29 Jan 2013

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source:“FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller(1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”

“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:


First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.


We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.


We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.


We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.


Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.


We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.


We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.


This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed the above Letter

Stolen Valor has list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.


It has been my observation over the course of 72 years that, the tyranny of good intentions, by intelligent people who should know better, is directly responsible for the majority of America’s problems. I say intelligent very loosely because it is very difficult for me to forgive their total lack of common sense. They digest false information and agree with it due to a lack of courage, common sense, and commitment to justice, then demand that everyone else agree with them, because they believe it is the right thing to do. This is their evaluation of a democracy, and they stand on their ignorance with both feet firmly planted on the head of free choice and personal responsibility.

During the last nine years I have studied until my health has been affected on the reasons why America is falling, and in spite of the atrocious actions of our leaders, and their Banker Masters, the bottom line of this irreversible decline in freedom and personal choice is and always has been the people who demand that government is the final authority, and not the principle’s of freedom. They are unwilling to suppose that anyone living before them were capable of knowing the future actions of despots, and how they would rob the people of their freedom.

I see no possible reversal of their ignorance, and have concluded that the premise of hundreds of millions of people with different worldviews living under the same laws is as looney as claiming we can fly.

Only when people of like mind and commitment separate them selves from those who think differently will we obtain peace. Separate States was the answer over two hundred years ago and it remains the answer to today’s problems. Example! If you want to force me to accept homosexuality as just another life style, kiss my ass! I will fight you until one of us dies! And the same goes for a multitude of other insanities being forced on me. I alone decide what acceptable behavior is for me and my family. Otherwise, freedom of choice is a fart in the wind, and personal choice does not exist. I give you the choice of separation or death! SECESSION IS THE ONLY WAY! And that! Is why you want to take my weapons away!


10 13 11 flagbar


The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses

February 3rd, 2013 by




2-3-2013 10-45-03 AM


Brandon Smith

In our modern world there exist certain institutions of power. Not government committees, alphabet agencies, corporate lobbies, or even standard militaryorganizations; no, these are the mere “middle-men” of power. The errand boys. The well paid hitmen of the global mafia. They are not the strategists or the decision makers.

Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms. Who write the propaganda. Who issue the orders from on high. I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades. I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc.

Many of these organizations and corporations operate a revolving door within the U.S. government. Monsanto has champions, like Donald Rumsfeld who was on the board of directors of its Searle Pharmaceuticals branch, who later went on to help the company force numerous dangerous products including Aspartame through the FDA. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have a veritable merry-go-round of corrupt banking agents which are appointed to important White Houseand Treasury positions on a regular basis REGARDLESS of which party happens to be in office. Most prominent politicians are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization which has openly admitted on multiple occasions that their goal is the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the formation of a “one world government” or “supranational union” (their words, not mine).

However, one organization seems to rear its ugly head at the forefront of the most sweeping mass propaganda operations of our time, and has been linked to the creation of the most atrocious militarymethodologies, including the use of false flag events. I am of coursereferring to the Rand Corporation, a California based “think tank” whose influence reaches into nearly every sphere of our society, from politics, to war, to entertainment.

The Rand Corporation deals in what I would call “absolute gray”. The goal of the group from its very inception was to promote a social atmosphere of moral ambiguity in the name of personal and nationalpriority. They did this first through the creation of “Rational Choice Theory”; a theory which prescribes that when making any choice, an individual (or government) must act as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at an action that maximizes personal advantage. Basically, the ends justify the means, and moral conscience is not a factor to be taken seriously if one wishes to be successful.

Hilariously, rational choice theory has been attacked in the past by pro-socialist (collectivist) critics as “extreme individualism”; a philosophy which gives us license to be as “self serving” as possible while feeling patriotic at the same time. In reality, the socialists should have been applauding Rand Corporation all along.

What Rand had done through its propaganda war against the American people was to infuse the exact culture of selfishness needed to push the U.S. towards the socialist ideal. At the onset of any communist or national socialist society (sorry socialists, but they do indeed come from the same collectivist mindset), the masses are first convinced to hand over ultimate power to the establishment in order to safeguard THEMSELVES, not others. That is to say, the common collectivist man chooses to hand over his freedoms and participate in totalitarianism not because he wants what is best for the world, but because he wants what is best for himself, and he believes servitude to the system will get him what he wants with as little private sacrifice as possible (you know, except for his soul…).

The psychologist Carl Jung notes in his observations of collectivism in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that most citizens of those nations did not necessarily want the formation of a tyrannical oligarchy, but, they went along with it anyway because they feared for their own comfort and livelihoods. Many a German supported the Third Reich simply because they did not want to lose a cushy job, or a steadypaycheck, or they liked that the “trains ran on time”. Socialism is by far the most selfish movement in history, despite the fact that they claim to do what they do “for the greater good of the greater number”.

Rand also used Rational Choice Theory as a means to removequestions of principle from the debate over social progress. Rational Choice propaganda commonly presents the target audience with a false conundrum. A perfect example would be the hardcore propaganda based television show ‘24’ starring Kiefer Sutherland, in which a government “anti-terrorism” agent is faced with a controlled choice scenario in nearly every episode. This choice almost always ends with the agent being forced to set aside his morals and conscience to torture, kill, and destroy without mercy, or, allow millions of innocents to die if he does not.

Of course, the real world does not work this way. Life is not a chess game. Avenues to resolution of any crisis are limited only by our imagination and intelligence, not to mention the immense number of choices that could be made to defuse a crisis before it develops. Yet, Rand would like you to believe that we (and those in government) are required to become monstrous in order to survive. That we should be willing to forgo conscience and justice now for the promise of peace and tranquility later.

This is the age old strategy of Centralization; to remove all choices within a system, by force or manipulation, until the masses think they have nothing left but the choices the elites give them. It is the bread and butter of elitist institutions like Rand Corporation, and is at the core of the push for globalization.

In my studies on the developing economic disaster (or economicrecovery depending on who you talk to) I have come across a particular methodology many times which set off my analyst alarm (or spidey-sense, if you will). This latest methodology, called “Linchpin Theory”, revolves around the work of John Casti, a Ph.D. from USC, “complexity scientist” and “systems theorist”, a Futurist, and most notably, a former employee of Rand Corporation:




Casti introduces his idea of “Linchpin Theory” in his book “X-Events: The Collapse Of Everything”, and what I found most immediately striking about the idea of “Linchpin Events” was how they offered perfect scapegoat scenarios for catastrophes that are engineered by the establishment.

Linchpin Theory argues that overt social, political, and technological “complexity” is to blame for the most destructive events in modern human history, and it is indeed an enticing suggestion for those who are uneducated and unaware of the behind the scenes mechanics of world events. Casti would like you to believe that political and social tides are unguided and chaotic; that all is random, and disaster is a product of “chance” trigger events that occur at the height of a malfunctioning and over-complicated system.

What he fails to mention, and what he should well know being a member of Rand, is that global events do not evolve in a vacuum. There have always been those groups who see themselves as the “select”, and who aspire to mold the future to there personal vision of Utopia. It has been openly admitted in myriad official observations on historical events that such groups have had a direct hand in the advent of particular conflicts.

For instance, Casti would call the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria an “X-event”, or linchpin, leading to the outbreak of WWI, when historical fact recalls that particular crisis was carefully constructed with the specific mind to involve the U.S.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated:

The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This was in 1909.”

So, long before the advent of Ferdinand’s assassination, plans were being set in motion by globalist interests to draw the U.S. into a large scale conflict in order to “alter the life, or thinking, of the entire culture”. When a group of people set out to direct thinking and opportunity towards a particular outcome, and the end result is a culmination of that outcome, it is obviously not coincidence, and it is definitely not providence. It can only be called subversive design.

In the economic arena, one might say that the collapse of Lehman Bros. was the “linchpin” that triggered the landslide in the derivatives market which is still going on to this day. However, the derivatives market bubble was a carefully constructed house of cards, deliberately created with the help of multiple agencies and institutions. The private Federal Reserve had to artificially lower interest rates and inject trillions upon trillions into the housing market, the international banks had to invest those trillions into mortgages that they KNEW were toxic and likely never to be repaid. The Federal Government had to allow those mortgages to then be chopped up into derivatives and resold on the open market. The ratings agencies had to examine those derivatives and obviously defunct mortgages and then stamp them AAA. The SEC had to ignore the massive fraud being done in broad daylight while sweeping thousands of formal complaints and whistle blowers under the rug.

This was not some “random” event caused by uncontrolled “complexity”. This was engineered complexity with a devious purpose. The creation of the derivatives collapse was done with foreknowledge, at least by some. Goldman Sachs was caught red handed betting against their OWN derivatives instruments! Meaning they knew exactly what was about to happen in the market they helped build! This is called Conspiracy…

One might attribute Casti’s idea to a sincere belief in chaos, and a lack of insight into the nature of globalism as a brand of religion. However, in his first and as far as I can tell only interview with Coast To Coast Radio, Casti promotes catastrophic “X-Events” as a “good thing” for humanity, right in line with the Rand Corporation ideology. Casti, being a futurist and elitist, sees the ideas of the past as obsolete when confronted with the technological advancements of the modern world, and so, describes X-event moments as a kind of evolutionary “kickstart”, knocking us out of our old and barbaric philosophies of living and forcing us, through trial by fire, to adapt to a more streamlined culture. The linchpin event is, to summarize Casti’s position, a culture’s way of “punishing itself” for settling too comfortably into its own heritage and traditions. In other words, WE will supposedly be to blame for the next great apocalypse, not the elites…

I might suggest that Casti’s attitude seems to be one of general indifference to human suffering in the wake of his “X-Events”, and that he would not necessarily be opposed to the deaths of millions if it caused the “advancement” of humanity towards a particular ideology. His concept of “advancement” and ours are likely very different, though. I suspect that he is well aware that X-Events are actually tools at the disposal of elitists to generate the “evolution” he so desires, and that evolution includes a collectivist result.

With almost every major economy on the globe on the verge of collapse and most now desperately inflating, taxing, or outright stealing in order to hide their situation, with multiple tinderbox environments being facilitated in the Pacific with China, North Korea, and Japan, and in the Middle East and Africa with Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, etc., there is no doubt that we are living in a linchpin-rich era. It is inevitable that one or more of these explosive tension points will erupt and cause a chain reaction around the planet. The linchpin and the chain reaction will become the focus of our epoch, rather than the men who made them possible in the first place.

Strangely, Casti’s theory was even recently featured in an episode of the ABC mystery/drama show “Castle”, called “Linchpin” (what else?), in which a writer turned detective uncovers a plot by a “shadow group” to use the research of the innocent Dr. Nelson Blakely (apparently based on Casti) to initiate a collapse of the U.S. economy by assassinating the ten-year-old daughter of a prominent Chinese businessman, triggering a dump of U.S. Treasuries by China and fomenting WWIII:


Now, I think anyone with any sense can see where this is going. Casti and Rand Corporation are giving us a glimpse into the future of propaganda. This is what will be written in our children’s history books in the globalists have their way. The fact that Linchpin Theory isfeatured in a primetime television show at all is a testament to Rand Corporation’s influence in the media. But, as for the wider picture, are the trigger points around us really just a product of complex coincidence?

Not a chance.

Each major global hot-spot today can easily be linked back to the designs of international corporate and banking interests and the puppet governments they use as messengers. Casti claims that “X-events” and “linchpins” cannot be accurately predicted, but it would seem that they can certainly be purposely created.

The globalists have stretched the whole of the world thin. They have removed almost every pillar of support from the edifice around us, and like a giant game of Jenga, are waiting for the final piece to be removed, causing the teetering structure to crumble. Once this calamity occurs, they will call it a random act of fate, or a mathematical inevitability of an overly complex system. They will say that they are not to blame. That we were in the midst of “recovery”. That they could not have seen it coming.

Their solution will be predictable. They will state that in order to avoid such future destruction, the global framework must be “simplified”, and what better way to simplify the world than to end national sovereignty, dissolve all borders, and centralize nation states under a single economic and political ideal?

Is it the Hegelian Dialectic all over again? Yes. Is it old hat feudalism and distraction? Yes. But, I have to hand it to Casti and Rand Corporation; they certainly have refined the argument for collectivism, centralization, technocracy, slavery, moral relativism, and false-flag dupery down to a near science…10 13 11 flagbar


February 2nd, 2013 by

Government prepares for war with the

people,and mass media approves

Posted: 31 Jan 2013 01:02 AM PST

Last September, in "The government's war at home," St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner looked at some ominous developments that seem to indicate preparation on the government's part for domestic warfare. The enemy? Oh, the usual suspects in these times of fear mongering about "right-wing violence"–"anti-federalists," "Tea Party insurgents," militias, etc. The newest "enemy" (theoretically, of course–at the moment), according to authorities in Ohio, is "Second Amendment activists," who are so angry about federal "gun control" laws that they use chemical, biological and radiological weapons against . . . someone–who that would be is not very clear

Alert : 2013 UN – NATO Martial Law USA! – Video

This presentation is just the "tip of the iceberg." Other US cities where NATO exercises either have been or are currently underway include but are not limited to, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, Ft. Colins Colorado, Minneapolis, Idaho and etc…. Moreover, train and truck loads of military hardware have been spotted in Tennessee, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa, Arizona and etc., etc… There is just to much information to cover in 20 minutes. It would take hours to document the extent to which these actions are now taking place in the USA. Get ready to rock 'n' roll!

‘Better Than Cash Alliance’ Backed by Bill Gates to Usher in Cashless Society

By Brandon Turbeville
It appears that while Bill Gates was content to play the role of Microsoft innovator and billionaire philanthropist early on, he has decided that the second half of his life deserves a more open and slightly more honest twist.

Indeed, in recent years Bill Gates and his Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation have funded a variety of initiatives aimed at reducing population, promoting toxic vaccinations, and now hyping and funding the development of the cashless society.

In a recent article by Peter McCoy published in Bloomberg Businessweek, McCoy reveals that Bill Gates is opposed to physical cash currency because, like vaccine-free populations who are able to determine their own reproduction rates, it hurts poor people (according to Gates).

Indeed, McCoy writes that Gates “hates cash” “because of its effect on people at the opposite end of the wealth spectrum—the world’s poor and unbanked.” Of course, in third world countries that are suffering from starvation, civil war, and abysmal living standards, the answer is clearly “banking.”

If only these nations had more banks and greater access to banks – the private banks of course – then we would finally see the living standards of these nations raised to truly acceptable levels. If only more people had access to digital transactions, then empty bellies would soon be filled.

Sarcasm aside, the push toward a cashless society under the guise of benefiting the poor and underserved is a very real movement. As McCoy points out in his article, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been instrumental in this regard as major backers of the Better Than Cash Alliance – an organization that was established last September whose stated objectives are to reach the following goals by 2017:

  • Significant commitments by governments, the development community, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector to implement electronic payment solutions instead of cash.
  • Delivery of demand-driven technical assistance to governments, non-governmental organizations, the development community, or members of the private sector that will dramatically increase the capacity of these stakeholders to deliver end-user-focused payment technologies.
  • Improved economic security for millions of low-income and poor people, many of whom were previously unbanked, enabling them to use bank or electronic accounts to build savings and assets via innovative payment technologies.

The Better Than Cash Alliance founding members and financiers boasts of a list of organizations that have their own sordid histories from the distant past all the way back to present times. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is instrumental in population reduction initiatives via vaccination programs, abortion and sterilization, and other programs; Citi, the major international bank who was intricately involved in the 2008 derivatives crisis; the Ford Foundation, representatives of which actually stated to Reece Commission Chief Investigator Norman Dodd  that the goal of the foundation was to comfortably merge the United States with the Soviet Union; Omidyar Network; and VISA Inc. which has long been interested in creating a cashless society.

Yet the Better Than Cash Alliance has more than just corporate and private sector sponsors as one of the key founding members and financiers is, in fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a “government” agency that answers directly to the U.S. Secretary of State. It has been understood for some time that USAID is nothing more than CIA front operation for intelligence gathering and as a facilitation mechanism for the CIA funding of foreign governments and organizations.

In addition, the Better Than Cash Alliance founder and financier roster contains the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), the UN’s “capital investment agency” reserved for use with the “least developed” nations.

The Better Than Cash Alliance also boasts of participation by the World Food Programme, Mercy Corps, Concern Worldwide, and CARE. The governments listed as taking part in the alliance are the governments of Afghanistan, Department of Social Prosperity of the Government of Colombia, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Peru, and Republic of the Philippines.

Yet, even without the establishment of the Better Than Cash Alliance or the recent comments by Bill Gates, it is very clear that the world is moving in the direction of an entirely cashless society. I, myself, have written many articles on this issue.

Unfortunately, what is being introduced as a method of convenience and upward social mobility will soon give way to mandates and eradication of choice.

The creation of the Better Than Cash Alliance and the international push for digital transactions is one more step toward the ultimate goal of the Cashless Society and the requirement that even the most personal individual information such as iris scans, fingerprints, vein scans, facial photographs, and even DNA swabs be surrendered for the purpose of data security.

Obviously, in a society whose citizens are able to carry and make transactions with cash, there is still some semblance of anonymity available to them. There is still the opportunity to purchase staples such as food and water (via third parties if necessary) even if a system of exclusivity were to be introduced and certain people were prohibited from making purchases directly.

In a cashless system, however, an enormous amount of trust is placed in the hands of the government agencies, banks, and corporations that would then control the money for the “convenience” of the unwitting soul who has sacrificed his own personal responsibility and control for the luxury of his convenience. If even one of these institutions decide, for whatever reason, that the account of the user should be frozen, disconnected, or discontinued, the ability to purchase the basic necessities will disappear. That is, it will disappear if there is no longer the option of cash.

When all financial transactions eventually become digital, it is only a matter of time before banks, corporations, and governments begin to force citizens to bend to their will with the threat of cutting off accounts as punishment for resistance or refusal.

This is precisely why we need both resistance and refusal now, before it is too late.


How is it possible in today’s world for people to still be infatuated with the patriotism crap of supporting the federal government, of blindly following whatever tyrannical dictums come out of DC? What the hell have people been fed that would make them so stupid?


Don’t let me hear any more of this pledge of allegiance crap. If you want to pledge your loyalty to someone, try Jesus Christ, He keeps his promises!

10 13 11 flagbar

Pages: 1 2 Next