Impeachment, Abortion & the Constitution

Proposed change to Article One, Section Three, Clause Six of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. When the President of the United States is subjected to impeachment proceedings, the Senate and the House of Representatives, meeting in joint session, shall be joined by the sitting justices of the Supreme Court; the Chief Justice shall preside; each body – the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court – shall have one vote, resulting from the majority poll of the respective members, a tie vote of the Senate being broken by the Majority Leader, a tie of the House of Representatives being broken by the Speaker of the House and any ultimate tie being broken by the Chief Justice.”

Section 2. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try Impeachments of Members for high crimes and misdemeanor violations of law or Congressional Rules and Regulations. The respective State Legislatures shall have the Power to remove sitting federal Senators and Representatives for conduct incompatible with the best interests of the State electors. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.”

 

Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation and intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

Limiting those that sit in judgement of a sitting President to members of the Senate only, effectively denies standing to the other co-equal legislative body and the judiciary in one of the most consequential actions available to the federal government.

In the event of a divided Congress, with one house under the control of one political party and the other house under the control of the opposite party, an impeachment action generated by the House could be, and has been, held hostage to partisan political considerations in the Senate when it should be judged upon its Constitutional merits.

The drafters of the Constitution obviously wanted the participation of each of the Constitutional entities – the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court and included duties for each. In the era before political parties and with a healthy disdain for “factions”, the drafters could not have foreseen the dangers that crass political partisanship would present to the Constitution.

This form of crass political partisanship was on display during the impeachment of Democrat President Bill Clinton in 1998 for perjury, abuse of office and sexual harassment and conduct concerning a young, female White House intern. He was, predictably, acquitted by the Democrat controlled Senate after the Republican controlled House properly brought charges, even though his testimony, under oath and where he lied (actually deconstructed the concept of “sexual relations”) to the American people about his actions despite irrefutable forensic evidence to the contrary, was broadcast to the world.

This form of crass political partisanship was not on display in 1973 when Republicans joined Democrats in both houses to move for impeachment of Republican President Richard Nixon.

If this new form of impeachment had been in effect all along, the Clinton case would probably have resulted in a 2-1 vote for his impeachment because of the composition of the Supreme Court under William Rehnquist. Although it never went to the Senate, the Nixon case would probably have resulted in a 3-0 vote for his impeachment. Both results would have been the correct Constitutional outcome.

This change would reduce the power of political partisanship in the Presidential impeachment process by considering all three federal branches equally in the ultimate decision.

The respective State Legislatures may also exercise their inherent right to recall Senators and Representatives should a State legislature decide that the performance of the Senator is not in the best interests of those who elected him/her. States shall determine the best method for conducting such an impeachment but, should be influenced by the Federal process described herein.

The respective State Congressional Districts may also exercise their inherent right to recall Members of the House of Representatives should the District voters decide that the performance of the Member is not in the best interests of those who elected him/her. States shall determine the best method for conducting such an impeachment

.

Proposed AMENDMENT XXX

 “Section 1: Human life begins at conceptionPersonhood commences when a licensed physician confirms that a healthy zygote has attached to the uterine wall of the host, rendering her pregnant. Personhood conveys all of the rights inherent in the Constitution to the unborn child, specifically those contained in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Except in a medical emergency declared by a licensed physician, any medical procedure that would place the life of the unborn person at risk shall only be permitted after due process of law. The interests of the unborn child shall be represented in such matters by a court appointed guardian ad litem.”

“Section 2: Should medical conditions be declared by a licensed physician, that indicate that carrying the child to term would critically endanger the life of the mother, an expedited petition must be made to the courts to terminate the pregnancy. The testimony of three neutral, licensed physicians, concerning their professional opinion about the facts of the case, and any other testimony the hearing judge may desire, shall be provided to the court before the judge may rule on the petition. The interests of the unborn child shall be represented in such matters by a court appointed guardian ad litem. A ruling in favor of the petitioner will allow an abortion to be performed. Appeals may be considered if time permits before the mother comes to full term or becomes critically ill.”

“Section 3: All other instances of an abortion procedure shall be illegal, and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as infanticide, with the appropriate penalties applied. The interests of the unborn child shall be represented in such matters by a court appointed guardian ad litem.”

“Section 4. No artificial intelligence in any form shall be considered as a person for Constitutional purposes.”

 

Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation and intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

Murder is …” the deliberate taking of a human life (premeditation can affect the degree of heinousness of the act) not committed while defending oneself or another person, or group of persons, from an immediate mortal threat – or in the defense of one’s country.”

If the act meets these criteria, as determined by due process of law, the accused killer is guilty of murder. Abortion meets none of the mitigating criteria except in the narrow case of a mortal threat to the life of the mother from carrying the child to term. Therefore, except for that single criteria, abortion is murder, as determined by due process of law – if one believes that a baby is a person. Let’s examine that issue.

America was founded by people who were infused with the Judeo-Christian ethic – the central tenet of Western Civilization from the time of the early Israelites more than five-hundred years before the Christian era. The Judeo-Christian ethic holds that life begins at conception – as Justice Blackman himself explained in his opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Deference must be granted to the ethos that created this country in the first place – the Judeo-Christian ethic that informed those intrepid and courageous settlers who came, infused with the faith of their forefathers, to wilderness settlements – first at Roanoke, then at Jamestown and Plymouth – followed by hundreds of remote hamlets, then thousands of communities that grew to towns and cities throughout the original colonies.

That faith had survived millennia of struggle, suffering, strife and conflict from the heart of the ancient “World Island” in what is known today as the Hindu Kush – from the Zoroastrians who professed history’s first monotheistic religion centered on a singular, supreme being – the creator, who presaged the history of creation that is still being validated by modern science and included the belief that life began at conception.

It proceeded through that most ancient of current civilizations, the Persians – to the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates and finally to an isolated tribe of Semites in the southern Levant who believed themselves to be the “chosen” people of the supreme being – their Lord and God – whom they referred to as Yahweh – who had preserved them while in slavery in Egypt and captivity in Babylon.

Today’s Christians believe that these people, the Israelites, produced a messiah – a Divine savior prophesied in the ancient Hebrew Bible – who established a religion based on love – of God, of oneself and of one’s neighbor – that conquered the polytheistic Greco-Roman world and enabled Western Civilization to flourish in Europe – preserved and protected through the centuries by holy men of faith transcribing the words of the Jewish Torah and the “Word of God” contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Christian Bible by people like “The Venerable Bede”. Consider this summary of the life of this simple Jewish man – from a sermon by Dr. James Allan Francis in 1926:

“Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself…

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

[On the third day following his execution, His grave was found to be empty. His body was never found. Christians believe through their faith that he was resurrected from the dead and is consubstantial in the presence of the Creator He called His Father.]

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.”

And so, it is from these people, the first People of America that we must take our lead that life truly does begin at conception. When man and woman couple together and produce a pregnancy – when a fertilized egg successfully attaches itself to the uterine wall and announces its arrival – Justice Blackman’s “potential human life” (cited above) becomes an actual human life. This person does not share the mother’s DNA. This new individual has new, separate DNA (the unique blueprint of the genetic code of every human being) and therefore is a separate human life, different from the mother by half – the father’s half.

So here is where Blackman’s argument falls apart. Blackman concedes that the federal right to privacy that he “discovered” in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution extends only to one’s own person, not any other person – for instance, the father has no federal right of privacy in Blackman’s reasoning – conveniently, only the mother. But what about the rights of the person inside her?

Defining life as beginning at conception as defined above – a fertilized egg with new, unique DNA successfully attached to the uterine wall causing the mother’s hormones to involuntarily react to its presence – a separate human life is now being automatically cared for by the mother.

Again, the federal right of privacy only pertains to the mother, not to the person inside – especially if the practitioners of abortion enter the scene. As long as no outside agent interferes, this life will be expelled into the outside world in about 39 weeks. Such a miraculous event must be accorded the deference it deserves as the defining moment in every person’s life – and thus, the defining moment of humanity itself. To deny this is to deny the America of the Founders and the generations who made her the last, best hope for humanity.

In this scenario, the only time that an outside agent may interfere with the gestation process without due process is before the fertilized egg successfully attaches to the uterine wall – which is commonly practiced today. But, once it is attached, it is a person with individual rights that must be weighed against any and all outside agents.

Since the Roe decision, nearly 60,000,000, that’s 60 MILLION, babies have been aborted in the United States. That staggering, sickening, stupefying and stunning number is more than the number of people killed worldwide in World War II or, the equivalent of an entire generation of Americans being exterminated.

Worse yet, figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that: “…black women continue to have the highest abortion rate of any ethnic group, with a gruesome 483 abortions for every 1,000 births.” That’s nearly one black baby in every two. If “black lives matter”, which is a current rallying call for progressives – and they do, and should – they need to be protected in the womb, as well as in the streets.

Invading hordes of barbarians kill babies. Genocides kill babies. Plagues kill babies. Civilized nations have not killed babies as a matter of policy since ancient Sparta – and that was only the physically deformed babies who could never be warriors. In all of history there has never been genocide like this. Think of the geniuses, the saints, the scientists, the superstars, the athletes and the artists we have lost. Behold America’s holocaust!

On a personal note; many babies each year are stillborn or die soon after birth – most for reasons unknown. I believe that there is a purpose for these tragedies. It may not be evident for some time after the heartbreak but, eventually in many cases, it becomes evident.

How, you may well ask? I believe that the spark of life first comes at some point, to the baby in the womb, through the mother. After all, her body supplies all of the needs for the growing life inside her. Experience childbirth just once and one will see that there is a clear connection between the animating spirit of the mother and the animating spirit of the child – fellow travelers, if you will, in humanity’s lifeboat.

Perhaps during the grieving process, perhaps later, in a mother’s moment of solitude – a still, small voice may be heard just below the level of consciousness, a thought – the two spirits, connecting again somehow between realms of God’s creation, through means known only to the Creator – and it is here that purpose is conveyed and discovered – a gift from baby to mother – and then, perhaps from mother to father, that gives meaning and purpose to the loss.

It is said and I believe, that God never gives us a burden so great that we cannot carry it. We may not be able to carry it alone – probably none of us can but, for a burden like this, I believe we will always have help – if we can find the time and place to listen for it.

For the aborted child however, the regret that is almost universally experienced by the mother at some point in life, may prevent the solitude necessary for that still, small voice to be heard. That is a tragedy also.

Finally, no one can say with any certainty that at some point, some self-styled intellectual, perhaps hiding behind the robes of the clergy, will propose that an artificial intelligence is a person for Constitutional purposes. This amendment will preclude that argument and save countless hours of wasted discussion and debate on the subject. Perhaps the philosophical argument concerning the nature of human life will be more advanced at the next quarter-millennial Convention of the States.

For purposes of this discussion however, an artificial intelligence is a computerized technology that has the capability to alter its coding autonomously.

To that end, the following policy shall be enforced.

·         All Artificial Intelligence (AI) entities shall be registered with the federal and appropriate governments.

·         All AI entities shall be equipped with a registered geo-positioning system that shall be operational at all times unless the entity is engaged in activities related to national security or law enforcement.

·         No AI entity shall have the capability to replicate itself or create or build another AI entity. Of course, there will be sinister forces in the world that will develop AI entities that can replicate. This technology may have to be dealt with like the spread of nuclear weapons technology.

·         No American AI entity shall be provided to any foreign country or entity without specific Congressional approval and the signature of the President of the United States.

·         All AI entities, except those engaged in activities related to national security or law enforcement, shall be clearly marked for recognition by the general public.

·         Any theft or misappropriation of AI technology in any form shall be classified as a Class A felony. If the AI entity is associated with national security or law enforcement, the act shall be classified as domestic terrorism or treason.

 

AMENDMENT XXXI

 Proposed change to Article One, Section Six, Clause One, of the U.S. Constitution:

 Section 1. “Persons elected to Congressional office by the citizens of the several States are not federal employees. They are employed by the voters and citizens of their respective States to represent the citizens’ interests and the interests of the United States in the federal legislature. United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives shall be paid by their respective States during their service. Rates shall be established by the legislatures of their respective States, which shall also be responsible for establishing and funding their health insurance, administrative and travel budgets. Sitting members may also be enrolled in the respective State retirement system during their term of service.”

Section 2. “Truth playing such an important part in a healthy democracy, members of Congress shall enjoy no immunity from issuing any slanders or libels, introduced on the floor of either House, during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same or from any slanders or libels introduced by any member of their staffs. They shall in all cases be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses.”

 Section 3. “In order to avoid partisan political influence or the appearance of partisan political influence in the prosecution of alleged offenses committed by sitting members of Congress, their staffs or other federal employees, such persons shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judge Advocate General of the United States, who shall be appointed for a term of ten years by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Congressional confirmation of this appointment is not required.”

 

 Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

In the spirit of the legendary Roman citizen/soldier, Cincinnatus, persons elected or appointed to federal office in the Congress are ordinary citizens, temporary place-holders and representatives beholden to the People of their respective States for their employment. They shall have no extra-constitutional rights or privileges associated with their respective offices.

 

AMENDMENT XXXII

Proposed change to Article One, Section Eight, Clause One of the U.S. Constitution:

“Section 1. “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

“Section 2. Congress’s power to spend shall be restricted to the execution of the enumerated powers specifically delegated to the Congress in the Constitution of the United States.”

“Section 3. For the purposes of this amendment, the ‘common defense’ shall refer to expenditures against both foreign and domestic enemies and ‘general welfare’ shall refer to expenditures for the general and national benefit and not for local or state or some individuals’ or non-governmental groups’, benefit.”

 

 Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

Syndicated columnist George Will, in a book review points out that: “When the Founding Fathers created this nation, they designated it a republic rather than a democracy. They did so because a republic is fixed and tends toward stability over time, whereas a democracy, which is always in flux, is prone to violent dissolution at any moment.  In fact, many of them referred to democracy as “mob rule,” and wanted to avoid it like the plague for fear that it could provide a faction the opportunity to access to the levers of political power and change the course of the nation for the worse in a relatively short period of time.

Although we have all but abolished the Constitution the Founders left us and moved closer to a democracy with each passing generation, we have still managed to remain a republic foundationally. Yet somewhere along the way, between 1776 and now, we opened the door to a rabid political correctness – the essence of the PLDC – that has actually nurtured the very faction-like atmosphere which tends to undo a republic.

In a 2006 interview, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Constitution is “basically about” one word — “democracy” — that appears in neither that document nor the Declaration of Independence. Democracy is America’s way of allocating political power. The Constitution, however, was adopted to confine that power in order to “secure the blessings of” that which simultaneously justifies and limits democratic government — natural liberty.

 The fundamental division in American politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom [conservatives], and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected [the PLDC].

 The argument is between conservatives who say American politics is basically about a condition – liberty, and progressive/liberals who say it is about a process –democracy. Progressives, who consider democracy the source of liberty, reverse the Founders’ premise, which was: Liberty pre-exists governments, which [liberty], the Declaration says, is legitimate when “instituted” to “secure” natural rights.

 Progressive/liberals consider, for example, the rights to property and free speech as “spaces of privacy” that government chooses “to carve out and protect” to the extent that these rights serve democracy. Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that governmental restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified. Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification.

 With the Declaration, Americans ceased claiming the rights of aggrieved Englishmen and began asserting rights that are universal because they are natural, meaning necessary for the flourishing of human nature. “In Europe,” wrote James Madison, “charters of liberty have been granted by power,” but America has “charters of power granted by liberty.”

[This discussion makes the conflict between the citizenry and the PLDC crystal-clear.]

Since the 1864 admission of Nevada to Statehood, every State’s admission has been conditioned on adoption of a constitution consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration. The Constitution is the nation’s fundamental law but is not the first law. The Declaration is! Appearing on Page 1 of Volume 1 of the U.S. Statutes at Large and at the beginning of the U.S. Code. Hence the Declaration “sets the framework” for reading the Constitution not as “basically about” democratic government — majorities — granting rights but about natural rights defining the limits of even a democratic government.

 The perennial conflict in American politics concerns “which takes precedence: the individual’s right to freedom, or the power of the majority to govern.” The purpose of the post-Civil War’s 14th Amendment protection of Americans’ “privileges or immunities” — protections vitiated by an absurdly narrow Supreme Court reading of that clause in 1873 — was to assert, on behalf of emancipated blacks, national rights of citizens. National citizenship grounded on natural rights would thwart Southern states then asserting their power to acknowledge only such rights as they chose to dispense.

 Government, the Framers said, is instituted to improve upon the state of nature, in which the individual is at the mercy of the strong. But when democracy, meaning the process of majority rule, is the supreme value — when it is elevated to the status of what the Constitution is “basically about” — the individual is again at the mercy of the strong, the strength of mere numbers.

 Progressivism therefore “inverts America’s constitutional foundations” by holding that the Constitution is “about” democracy, which rejects the Framers’ premise that majority rule is legitimate “only within the boundaries” of the individual’s natural rights. These include — indeed, are mostly — unenumerated rights whose existence and importance are affirmed by the 9th Amendment.

 A list of unenumerated, inalienable rights is not relevant because the Constitution only discusses those inalienable rights the vast majority of Americans at the time were ready to cede to a central government – all others to be reserved to the States and the People.”

“But, this is where Will and many establishment conservatives [read establishment Republicans] lose their way by accepting this analysis: [The] indiscriminate denunciations [by some conservatives] of “judicial activism” inadvertently serve progressivism, reasoning that; “The protection of rights, those constitutionally enumerated and others, requires a judiciary actively engaged in enforcing what the Constitution is “basically about,” which is making majority power respect individuals’ rights.”

 The error is this: The intent of the Founders was that the power of the People was to be writ large and the power of government – any and all government, in all of [their] complexity, bureaucracy and human frailty – was to be writ small.

 It was to remain within the power of the People, collectively, to decide when and where a government was allowed to interfere with their liberty and freedom to live their lives and to pursue their dreams for success and happiness. If there was enforcing to be done, it was to be done by the People, for the People and the best way to do that was from the People, i.e., as close to the People as practicable.”

 A nameless, faceless, unaccountable federal government entity was as far from the Founders’ intent as it is possible to get. “Top-down” government is the antithesis of republican government – which is what the Founders created and set down in the Constitution. Government by self-ignorant elites creates chaos (as endlessly demonstrated above) because they are detached from that which they deign to govern. The result of that chaos is eerily akin to the chaos created by a pure democracy – where each individual has a selfishly-interested vote.

Next time: Tyranny – Majority to Minority.

Advertisements

Taxes

AMENDMENT XXVIII

 Proposed change to Article One, Section Two, Clause Three of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by the decennial census as updated annually by the United States Census Bureau.”

Section 2. The several States shall collect the direct Taxes from the residents of the State and shall pay the direct Taxes to the United States Treasury by quarterly payments, the last of which shall be no later than April 15 annually. The citizens of the several States shall pay no taxes directly to the federal government. The revenues attributed to the direct Taxes paid by the several States to the federal government shall be sufficient to cover annual federal outlays.

Section 3. The respective Senators and Representatives of the several States shall report to their State legislatures the amount of revenues forecast to be required from their State by the federal government by the first day of October prior to the beginning of the subsequent fiscal year.”

Section 4. The manner and means to assign and collect direct Taxes shall be left to the discretion of the several States. The several States shall consider that the Founders never envisioned a tax on initiative, creativity and determination, which is measured in a free market capitalist society as income.

“Section 5. The authority of the Internal Revenue Service shall be limited to collection of Congressionally mandated revenues from the States, commercial tax matters, collection and auditing of taxes on political contributions in cash and kind and the collection of corporate taxes and federal excise taxes.”

Section 6. The federal government shall operate on the basis of an annual balanced budget.”

“Section 7. The president shall have the authority to veto budgetary line items. The President may not move spending authority from one budget line-item to another without budgetary approval of the Congress. The Congress may override each item by a two-thirds vote of each house.”

Section 8. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

(Some of the wording is directly from the text of the Constitution.)

The essence of the confederation of States in our democratic-republic, known as the Union, is that the relationship between he People and their federal government goes through the States. The Founders created this affiliation and certified it by not incorporating any federal direct taxes on the efforts of the People.

“The U.S. Supreme Court decided Pollock v. Farmers Loan Trust Co., striking down the federal income tax of 1894. In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the income tax is a direct tax. Chief Justice Melville Fuller, writing for the majority, first showed a surprisingly keen awareness of economic concept of incidence:

“Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes.”

However, he went further and analyzed the writings of the Framers, the tax writings of Adam Smith, the ratification debates in the states, and observations by early justices and members of Congress. From this he concluded that it was well understood [at the time of the Constitutional Convention] that “all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes.”

Since direct taxes must be apportioned by State population under the Constitution, the 1894 law was void. While admitting that such a method of imposing income taxes would be considered unfair by many, its purpose was “to restrain the exercise of the power of direct taxation to extraordinary emergencies [such as the Civil War, the first time personal income was taxed], and to prevent an attack upon accumulated property by mere force of numbers.

Justices Edward White and John Harlan, dissenting, repeatedly disparaged “the views of economists” as irrelevant to the legal inquiry, instead noting that the early Supreme Court held that a tax on carriages was not a direct tax, and in dicta, that only taxes on land would be a direct tax. He urged that the Court defer to Congress with respect to its powers of taxation.

[Justices White and Harlan seem to be indicating that the Supreme Court has the ability to suspend the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss and perhaps other laws of nature, by disparaging the economic experts. In their world, apparently, legal knowledge is superior to any other category. Perhaps this attitude is what the Bard was alluding to in a line from William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The full quote is “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”]

After a rehearing, the Court reissued opinions on May 20, 1895, extending its holding from just rental property income to income from bonds and stocks also, a fatal enough blow to strike down the entire income tax law.”

[Of course, then the politicians concocted the 16th Amendment to thwart the guidance of the Founders, that has led to America’s $20 trillion debt.]

The United States finances the vast majority of all of its operations from income taxes collected from individual taxpayers. The top 1% of American earners pay almost half of all the income taxes. Nearly half of all identified taxpayers pay no income taxes at all to the federal government. This means that half of the population is enjoying the benefits of being an American without contributing their fair share to the effort. It also means that half the population is being treated unequally because of their desire and determination to provide for themselves and others. It also means that the “freeloading majority” will forever be able to hold the most productive of our citizens hostage by sheer weight of numbers. What is wrong with this picture? The answer – everything!

The current contemporary debate about capitalism is that it is a fundamental law of capitalism that wealth will grow more concentrated absent destabilizing events like global wars. Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane.

 While it’s true that the wealth of all three people appears to be contributing to inequality, one could argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third. They would be wrong because the conspicuous consumption of the third person is creating high paying jobs in highly technical industries – probably reducing the inequality overall.

 A national strategic goal of spreading wealth is as American as apple pie, yet the nation shouldn’t want to discourage the very wealthy who are taking risks, investing in value-creating (read jobs) businesses, and helping the world through philanthropy [just as they shouldn’t want to penalize people for their initiative – getting out of bed each morning to go to work and provide, not only for their family but, for the nation as well. To believe otherwise is simply perverse and perverted].

 One of the world’s richest men, American Bill Gates – certainly no conservative Republican – has proposed one solution? Shift the American tax code from one that taxes labor [but only for half the workers] to one that taxes consumption [which includes everyone who shares in America’s abundance]. Now, this sounds like standard, right-wing economic theory. Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they provide the consumer a choice of whether to spend their capital on taxes in each particular purchase decision.

 “Now, it is true that since everyone—rich and poor—have to consume some amount of goods and services, and because the proportion of income spent is much higher for the poor than the rich, consumption taxes, like state and local sales taxes, burden the poor more than the rich. Allowances could be made for essentials like food, fuel and medicine. In the case of essential goods and services, there usually is not much of a decision to be made. The decision for the consumer is “Is this purchase really essential?” That is where the consumer’s choice comes into play.

 Beyond the essentials, the debate then becomes; “Should the wealthy pay more for luxuries?” or its converse; “Should the poor pay less for luxuries?” This is the historic “class debate” that the Founders sought to bury with the absence of any provision for a tax on wealth in the Constitution. [They had endured life in a caste society under British rule for 150 years until independence was declared in 1776. They did not want to return to the “bad old days”. Only in a society where “equal outcomes” outweigh “equal opportunities” would such a debate gain traction. That’s the PLDC society in a nutshell.]

 But, according to some, this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Liberal economists like Cornell University’s Robert Frank have long advocated for progressive consumption taxes that could do much to solve what they perceive as the ills of growing income inequality. As Frank writes: “Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. A family’s annual consumption is simply the difference between its income and its annual savings. That amount, minus a standard deduction—say, $30,000 for a family of four—would be the family’s taxable consumption. Rates would start low, like 10 percent. A family that earned $50,000 and saved $5,000 would thus have taxable consumption of $15,000.

 Consider, he writes, a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100% (the PLDC version of paradise), the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.

 As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth. Such a regime could appeal to both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. For those on the left, who are sometimes uncomfortable with the effects of a culture based around consumption, this tax would discourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a regime that encourages savings and investment would appeal to conservatives.

 But, according to advocates for this regime, for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax on everyone to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. What’s wrong with that, you ask carelessly? It would make the poor feel bad and, rather than incentivize them to make adjustments to their workstyle and lifestyle, just punish those who already have – sort of like socialism.”

 So, let’s consider a consumption tax that would really work and not fall prey to the socialist crowd. Although the current income tax situation is grossly unfair (half of the taxpayers don’t pay taxes – sort of an oxymoron) and the constitutionality of the income tax is itself, suspect, a tax that meets the requirements set down by the Founders in the Constitution is the Value Added Tax, or VAT. It is a flat tax on all commercial transactions that occur within the United States and by United States chartered corporations operating abroad – thereby treating everyone equally. How American!

 A direct measure of all of the commercial transactions that occur within the United States is the metric known as the Gross National Product (GNP), defined as the market value of all the products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens of a country.

The GNP of the United States in 2015 was approximately $20 trillion. If every commercial transaction – from the farmer buying seed to plant crops to the homemaker purchasing vegetables for Sunday dinner; from a mining company purchasing power to run an iron ore mining operation to a college student purchasing her first car (one with a steel frame) – every commercial transaction in every facet of our economy is taxed at a rate of, for example, 15%, $3 trillion would be collected via the VAT.

The government estimate for federal income tax collections for 2015 was $1.48 trillion. So, the VAT would bring in more than twice the amount the IRS could collect from individuals. Adding the scheduled $1.7 trillion from other sources would result in federal revenues of approximately $4.7 trillion. Federal expenses are estimated at about $3.7 trillion, leaving a surplus of about $1 trillion with which to pay down the $20 trillion national debt. Not a bad idea!

Why is the VAT a better idea than the income tax? Americans and American corporations spend $500 billion (that’s half a trillion dollars folks) and over 6 billion hours per year on income tax matters in order to comply with the 75,000-page tax code.

That’s obscene, absurd and unfair! The people who benefit most from the current system are the wealthy, because they can afford to pay the tax attorneys to find ways to exploit loopholes in the mindbogglingly complex tax code. The VAT code could be written on one side of one page, thusly:

“Every financial transaction, conducted by persons and corporations within the United States and by United States chartered corporations operating abroad, shall be subject to a 15% tax upon the cost of the transaction to the purchaser. The tax shall be collected by the seller and forwarded within ten business days to the State in which the transaction takes place or where the corporation is chartered.”

Would there be cheaters? Of course. There are cheaters today. The only real way to prevent cheating is to eliminate the currency. All transactions are digital. That would force the cheaters onto the barter system or the hawala system used by Arabs and Muslims – requiring people to carry around wads of money. That would make the pickpockets happy.

It’s that simple but, the PLDC would fight to the death to preserve the income tax in the name of “fairness” – so they claim. It is “fair” for their constituents because the vast majority of them pay no income taxes at all! If no one paid income taxes, that would be unfair using the logic of the left where competition is unfair, conflict is unfair (because it mimics competition), success is unfair, accomplishment is unfair, winning is unfair and wealth is unfair.

Imagine a world without competition, success, accomplishment, victories or wealth – all so there will be no conflicts and Americans can have everything they want right now. And they all lived happily ever after, Love, Walt Disney.

Another reason the VAT is a better idea than an income tax is that an income tax stifles initiative, creativity, grit and determination – the very characteristics that has made America the engine for the world economy for over 100 years and made it the arsenal of democracy that won two world wars and the Cold War with International Communism.

The average American-taxpaying-family today pays approximately one-third (actually 33-40%) of their income in federal, state, local and sales taxes. VAT could easily cut that in half. Imagine what that money in circulation ($1.5 trillion) – plus the half-trillion dollars now spent on taxes – a 10% boost in available spending  money– would do for the economy!

Republican President Ronald Reagan told the story of his career as an actor in the motion picture business in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time, the income tax rate for the nation’s highest earners – and movie stars fit that description – was 90%! The former President said he was better off financially by not working in the movie industry than paying the federal and state governments virtually all of his earnings. That’s obscene and absurd – but actually a sound financial decision!

A third reason the VAT is a better idea than the income tax is that it eliminates the reality of illegal, vindictive and borderline abuse of the American People by the feared and hated Internal Revenue Service – a story that doesn’t need repeating here.

A fourth reason the VAT is a better idea than the income tax is that it allows the individual to decide whether or not he or she wants to pay the tax at a particular time and place. Perhaps waiting for the next “sale” is a better financial decision?

A fifth reason the VAT is a better idea than the income tax is that sellers do not benefit by passing the cost of the tax along to consumers because everyone pays the same tax at every step of the economic process. The seller today was the purchaser yesterday. Profit comes from “value added” not artificial costs – like taxes.

The VAT, in the end, would be a virtually invisible tax. No one would notice it because everyone would deal with it every day in every way. No one would have any relative advantage like many do now – both at the top and the bottom of the economic ladder.

Finally, all of the tax attorneys, financial planners and tax preparers could work for the corporations to find advantages in foreign tax markets—thereby helping our trade deficit.

Moving on: The influence of money, particularly commercial or corporate money, labor union money, political action committee money and bundled money contributed to political or public office holders and office seekers has become corrupting to an unacceptable level. The purpose of this section of the amendment is to construct a Constitutional wall separating monied interests from the political process as much as practicable.

To that end, the IRS – now looking for things to do – shall collect a 50% tax on ALL political contributions to public officeholders, office seekers and ALL entities, whether individuals, organizations, commercial interests or similar entities, that contribute cash and kind, or promise of the same, to those persons’ election or service efforts. The revenues collected shall be distributed to the States on a per capita basis to be used exclusively for education in the civic life and responsibilities of all citizens and to help offset the costs of elections.

In this manner, for every dollar provided by a private entity for political activity by an elected or appointed public official, an equal amount shall be provided to the public – the voters – to help them fulfill their civic responsibility to cast an informed vote for a worthy candidate.

The IRS shall also audit the political lobbying industry to ensure that, if individuals, organizations or commercial entities contribute cash and kind, or promise of the same, to political or public officeholders and/or office seekers for their election or service efforts, they abstain from lobbying those same persons during their term of service.

All persons representing commercial interests of any kind, whether public or private, for-profit or non-profit, foreign or domestic, religious or secular, government or non-government, etc., must register publicly as a lobbyist prior to contacting any political or public officeholder or office seeker.

The Congress shall pass the appropriate statutes to ensure that if individuals, organizations, commercial interests, or similar entities wish to make cash or kind contributions, or promise of the same, to political or public officeholders and/or office seekers, they are prohibited from lobbying the recipient and, if they wish to lobby political or public officeholders and office seekers, they are prohibited from making contributions to them, whether cash or kind, or promise of the same.

No political or public officeholders and/or office seekers shall secure a private loan or similar financial instrument, or promise of the same, from any individuals, organizations, commercial interests, or similar entities during official campaigns for office or during their term of service.

No lobbying of any kind shall occur at the United States Capitol complex or at the White House or at any of the Executive Department agencies.

Next time: Impeachment and abortion.

 

Militias in Action

With literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant and alien fighters, organized into fighting units called “gangs” or “families” or “tongs” or “cartels”, operating subversive enterprises within the borders of the United States and without any hope of assistance from the federal government, the Governors of the several states are within their constitutional rights under Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution to declare that a state of war exists (war on drugs, war on radical Islamic terrorism, war on poverty, etc.) within their respective States and to call up the State militia to compel the expulsion of all illegal immigrant and alien fighters (i.e. members of contra-legal organizations) from their borders and ultimately from the United States itself.

Because these groups essentially function as invading armies, State militias will operate under the Law of War and not as police forces. The Law of War is discussed in another section.

State militia assets may also be authorized by the Governors, under the control of the county sheriffs, to assist law enforcement with the elimination of domestic gangs and other terroristic or subversive entities from their respective counties.

Members of the reserve militia or State guard forces shall provide their own firearms (officially permitted by definition) which are compatible with standard military ammunition supplied by the State and certification of basic training with their firearm. In addition, they shall supply their own transportation to and from assignments and be available for training for one weekend per month and service for two weeks per calendar year.

County sheriffs, under their militia authority, may band together with other counties’ militias to see to it that all federal, state, county and local laws, rules and regulations are enforced throughout the sovereign territory of their respective States. Just imagine how many able and concerned citizens will volunteer to help regain lost territory and their lost peace-of-mind, while gaining stature in their communities as one of those standing up to evil.

The governors of the several sovereign States may employ a corollary of the “Bush Doctrine” (discussed elsewhere) on foreign policy to employ preemptive self-defense using their States’ militia forces for the protection of the citizens of their respective States if a neighboring State presents a real and present danger to citizens because of policies that do not support the new Constitutional restoration provisions.

A real-world case-in-point is the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State. This has resulted in the illegal introduction of unprecedented amounts of the federally illegal drug into neighboring States. The federal courts have been unwilling to assist the affected States with lawsuits to prevent this illegal and dangerous activity within their States. The governors should be able to use their militia assets to stem the flow of this illegal drug from Colorado and Washington State by forcing the removal of dispensaries adjacent to their State lines combined with strong border enforcement.

In truth, all of the drug trade and the human trafficking are only possible because the States are incapable of stopping it within their borders because of the lack of the proper assets or because the federal government asserts its authority over the States even when it is incapable of staunching the flow of people and product, with military precision, across and throughout this country. This can no longer be addressed as a law enforcement issue – this is war being waged on the People.

Because of the nature of the operations conducted by drug trafficking interests, human traffickers, radical Islamist cells and their indigenous supporters, Mexican imperialists, and others who do not respect national or State jurisdictions, County sheriffs across America are encouraged to cooperate with and support each other’s efforts to combat these extra-state operators by sharing manpower, material and intelligence when necessary to enforce Constitutional provisions throughout the United States and its territories.

The reason why there are foreign and domestic occupation armies in most of our urban areas is because we have collectively permitted them to first invade, then transit through numerous States to their final destination. Even then, we permit their lines of communication within and without the country to continue functioning – bringing replacement soldiers as well as guns, ammunition, explosives and other supplies. A well-run militia could turn the tide in favor of the People if permitted to do so by the governors.

For decades, the PLDC has been complaining that minority groups are over-represented in the combat arms of the United States because they haven’t had the financial wherewithal to escape military service. By now, there must be an inordinate number of decorated former soldiers and Marines from all ethnic groups who would be only too happy to again utilize their training and experience to lead motivated and capable men and women in a new, sanctioned campaign to take back the large geographic areas of their own country – including their own neighborhoods – from foreign invaders and their indigenous allies.

Take back from people like “white-supremacist” groups, organized European, African-American, Asian, Latin and Russian gangs, the cartel franchises, the drug and human traffickers, the terrorist sympathizers – a new phenomenon, socialist shock-troops called “Antifa” who are really old-fashioned anarchists – and the politicians and public figures who enable them for personal gain.

Will there be collateral damage in this war to drive out the invaders? There is always collateral damage in war but there has already been collateral damage – for the past fifty years in America – stemming from the invaders’ campaign to take and control territory – mostly in urban areas where most of our vulnerable citizens live. We see it reported every night on the news and the death toll already is in the hundreds of thousands.

The State militias shall not be part of the federal military establishment, such as USNORTHCOM, which commands the U.S. military’s homeland defense assets. Militias may aid USNORTHCOM (or future equivalents) when called forth by the Congress but shall remain under the authority and control of the governors of the several States under joint operating agreements.

Recall Section 4 of this amendment:

“Section 4. Failure on the part of a sitting governor to fully implement all of the provisions of this mandate shall constitute an impeachable offense. Should the legislature fail to remove the offending governor, it shall fall to the judiciary of the State to remove the offending governor. Should the judiciary fail to remove the governor, it shall fall to the county sheriffs of the State to utilize the Reserve Militias under their commands to remove the offending governor.

That certainly sounds draconian, some would say. Upon reflection however, one can see that this provision reflects the ultimate power that resides in the People and, if taken to the extreme, a repudiation of that power by a sitting governor would most appropriately be met by the People exerting their ultimate control over elected and appointed officials by using their ultimate weapon against tyranny – an armed citizenry in the manner demanded in our own Declaration of Independence – as they have numerous times in the past – beginning with the American Revolution.

Some will worry that such a system will have elected and appointed officials living in fear of the People. That is not a bad thing. Any official who does not consider the welfare of all his or her constituents first and foremost in any decision they make or action they take is not doing the job they were elected or appointed to do. They are not in those positions to push a personal agenda on the public, they are there to honor their oath of office. They dishonor that oath at their own professional – and perhaps, personal – peril.

Let us imagine that the governor of one of the several States has failed to implement the provisions of this amendment – now, for argument’s sake, part of the Constitution of the United States. Let’s use California as the example. California was declared a sanctuary State by the governor, Democrat Jerry Brown when he signed a bill from the State legislature into law, one that he had championed. That put the State of California in open rebellion against the Union for an unconstitutional refusal to enforce the laws of the United States – in this case, immigration laws.

The effect of this declaration was to expose the continental United States to uncontrolled entry into the territory of the United States by persons unknown through California’s 141-mile-long porous border with Mexico and its 840 miles of undefended coastline – placing America’s very sovereignty in jeopardy since, once in California, illegal entrants can cross its open eastern and northern borders and disappear into the interior of the country to parts unknown to do God knows what.

Recall that Abraham Lincoln was confronted with a similar situation when he took the oath of office in March 1861 – numerous States in open rebellion against the Union through unconstitutional secession. And, recall what he did. He called for the States remaining in the Union to send 75,000 State militia to the Capitol to oppose the rebellion and restore the Union.

But, what if the American President in 2017 called upon the States to provide militia for the cause of putting down the rebellion and returning California to the Union. He would get no response because there are no States with a militia. Neither could he call out the National Guard to fight other Americans in California because of restrictions under posse comitatus?

“Recall that the Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. para. 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States – as the federal government had done during Reconstruction in the South following the Civil War. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard under State authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that State’s governor.”

There are no such restrictions on the State Reserve Militia which is not mentioned in the Act and would not apply to a maritime, marine, air or cyber component of the State Reserve Militia either .

Without this amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to the constitutions of the several States, America is legally incapable of putting down a rebellion against the Union.

With these tools in hand – the 2nd Amendment unsheathed, the Subversives Act, the Law of War and the establishment of State militias under the authority of the governors of the several States and the control of America’s county sheriffs – those who would destroy the very nature of our democratic republic described above can be systematically removed from the shadows and from the public square so that the necessary changes to the Constitution may be implemented to end the systemic corruption and systematic dismantling of the great institutions of the United States of America.

For argument’s sake, let’s agree that all of the Founders were patriots – in fact, they define patriotism, after all, they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to preserve, protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the nation they had conceived, birthed and bequeathed to the People in righteousness.

The question now is: Who are today’s patriots? Among them are the more than sixty million American voters (26% of the voting age population) who don’t follow the lead of the PLDC – looking for handouts of special favors from their elected or appointed officials or free stuff from functionaries toiling in the bowels of their bureaucracy – but rather those who adhere to the Founder’s dream – as embodied in the Constitution.

Remember, only about 65 million out of about 240 million eligible voters believed Democrat President Barack Obama deserved a second term. The problem is that almost 50% of the eligible voters either don’t care or are too-ignorant-by-design to understand what has happened to their freedoms.

For those who give lip service to their oath of office and those who actively seek to weaken the guarantees of the Constitution through self-righteousness, treachery and deceit, the PATRIOT Act was written and bequeathed to the People by some of today’s patriots. With it, patriots from across this land will restore the power to the People.

We have already met the self-righteous, treacherous and deceitful Americans who have brought us to this low point. They are the admirers of Wilson, the fans of John Reed and the anarchist Emma Goldman, the devotees of Hiss and Plame, the champions of Presidents Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, the acolytes of Alinsky and Soros, the ragtag army of Jackson and Sharpton and the disciples of Obama and Hillary. They are the countless faces that have infected the body politic and metastasized in the Democrat Party, academia, public education, the public-service unions, the courts, the entertainment industry and the press/media. Holistic treatments (such as the placebo of “informed” elections) are no longer effective – or even possible. This cancer now must be cutout.

Fortunately, the Founders and our two most revered Presidents, Washington and Lincoln, have shown us the way by actually using Constitutionally authorized State militias to defend the Constitution on the national stage.

We have already touched on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. “The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. The so-called “whiskey tax” was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue to help reduce the national debt left over from the Revolutionary War. 

Although the tax applied to all distilled spirits, whiskey was by far the most popular distilled beverage in the 18th-Century U.S. Because of this, the excise became widely known as a “whiskey tax”. The new excise was a part of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton‘s program to fund war debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War.

The tax was resisted by farmers in the western frontier regions who were long accustomed to distilling their surplus grain and corn into whiskey. In these regions, whiskey was sufficiently popular that it often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the U.S. federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation (some would say “terrorism”) to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in Western Pennsylvania to serve write to distillers who had not paid the excise.

The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax Inspector General John Neville . Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on the State governors to send State militia forces to enforce the law.

With 13,000 militiamen (the equivalent of more than 1,000,000 militiamen today) provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.”

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government, in league with the sovereign State governments, had the will and the ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws with the use of military-style force provided by constitutionally authorized State militia. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however.

These events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway. The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton’s Federalist Party, came to power in 1801.”

It is not unreasonable to presume that those in power at the federal level may, at some point in time, feel threatened by State militias exercising their Constitutional rights and may attempt to disrupt their efforts. Already militarily robust, State militias must also be able to defend against attacks, even cyber-attacks from whatever quarter – even the federal government.

Next time: Taxes!

Declaration of Restoration

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 2026.

The unanimous Declaration of Restoration of the fifty United States of America and Territories:

 In keeping with the tradition and precedent set by our forefathers in convention at Philadelphia and acknowledging that the Great Document, produced and ratified at that time and amended occasionally according to its provisions, has been corrupted over time by inept or nefarious factions to the extent that it no longer reflects the actual, original words, meanings, intentions, understanding, interpretation of and implementation by the Founders, this Convention resolves that the People overcome these oppressions and reclaim their just powers from the national government in the manner created by Article V of the Great Document.

 The Government created by the Constitution of the United States needs to be reminded, by quoting freely from Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, that: “We, the People 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”.

We, the People, recognize that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Such has been the patient sufferance of the People of these United States; “and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

“In every stage of these Oppressions, We (the People) have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”  “We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,” … “They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”

The history of these recent national Governments “is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” and now necessitates the promulgation and ratification of the following amendments constituting a “Bill of Restoration” to the Great Document.

 The business of the Convention of the States:

 The first order of business for this Convention of the States shall be to exercise “common sense” and pass the Subversives Act as already enacted in the several States prior to their selecting delegates to the Convention; to identify certain indigenous, nefarious factions and individuals practicing subversive activities as “domestic enemies” and to establish State Militia forces in the several States to combat these enemies under the procedures and processes of the Subversives Law, as well as non-indigenous para-military criminal enterprises that are too pervasive and powerful for law enforcement to defeat, and enshrine the State militias more prominently in the Constitution of the United States.

 Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the Preamble and Declaration:

 These texts have included within them copious amounts of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. It is painful and sad to note that the circumstances that necessitated the Declaration have been repeated, and like last time – by our own countrymen – formerly, the British Crown and bureaucrats in the Colonies and this time, the PLDC under Democrat administrations since Franklin Roosevelt, who himself borrowed liberally from Woodrow Wilson.

The description of the prior issues with the central government (in London) that Jefferson described in the Declaration are duplicated in 21st Century America – almost word for word. Rather than physical abolition of the central government that was necessary last time, a metaphorical abolition of large segments of the federal government and its acolytes in Washington known as the Establishment, and the cabal of fellow-travelers from both sides of the political aisle that enables it, is proposed this time.

Where the early Republic dealt badly with issues like sedition, our Republic must deal firmly, but wisely with the issue of subversion. Sedition was defined, at the time of the “Alien and Sedition Act”, as any words critical of the federal government (even if true) initiated by the People – effectively insulating the federal government from criticism. Subversion – by contrast – is defined as the withholding of truths critical of the federal government from the People – effectively insulating the People from the truth. Quite the opposite concept, wouldn’t you say?

And while the early citizenry had a profound appreciation for the militia of the day, our citizenry has been subjected to a calculated demonization of the concept of a citizen militia. That will change with citizen education.

The “Common Sense Clause” invites the “reasonable man” standard. In law, a reasonable person (historically, a reasonable man) is a composite of a relevant community’s judgment as to how a typical member of that community should behave – or can be expected to behave – in situations that might pose a threat of damage or harm (through action or inaction) to the safety, security and domestic tranquility of persons or property.

The base for the word is “reason” – implying a sound mental ability to reason (a verb) – not an insignificant issue in present day America where reason is often confused with reaction – usually reflecting an absence of reason.

A “reasonable” American citizen would not systematically withhold the truth about civic matters or issues of public policy or concernfrom the People, and certainly not the American voter, in order to gain power or prestige. It is because the PLDC has been so “unreasonable” over such a long period of time that the Subversive Act and the State militia are now necessary to stem the tide of untruths flooding into the public square.

“The “reasonable person” is an original concept of English common law – upon which the American system of jurisprudence is based. While there is loose consensus in black-letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As a legal fiction, the “reasonable person” is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept especially in regards to provocation.

The standard holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a “reasonable person” would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each concept will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.

The “reasonable person” construct can be found applied in many areas of the law as a product of constitutional provisions. It attempts to define a judicial standard by reference to a hypothetical person, which stretches back to the creation by Roman jurists of the figure of the “bonus paterfamilias – the good father”. It was popularized for contemporary America in the award-winning television series, The Good Wife – where the main character, Alicia Florrick, portrayed by award-winning actress Julianna Margulies as a mother and lawyer who is not perfect, but constantly striving to “do the right thing”. 

“In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet detailed the characteristics of l’homme moyen. Quetelet was a Belgian astronomer, statistician, mathematician and sociologist. He documented the physical characteristics of man on a statistical basis and discussed man’s motivations when acting in society.

His work translates into English several ways. As a result, some authors pick “average man”, “common man”, “reasonable man”, or give up and stick to “l’homme moyen“. Two years later, the “reasonable person” made his first appearance in the English case of Vaughan v. Menlove (1837). 

American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932 and Acting Chief Justice of the United States, January–February 1930) explained the theory behind the reasonable person standard as stemming from the impossibility of “measuring a man’s powers and limitations.” Individual, personal quirks inadvertently injuring the persons or property of others are no less damaging than intentional acts.

For society to function, “a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare.” Thus, a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. As such, “his neighbors accordingly require him, at his proper peril, to come up to their standard, and the courts which they establish decline to take his personal equation into account.”

The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the “average person,” who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable. The reasonable person must be able to weigh all of the following factors before acting:

·         the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;

·         the extent of the risk so created;

·         the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;

·         alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable and aware of the law [recall the old saw; “ignorance of the law is no excuse…”], fair-minded and a mentally competent member of society. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it must be reasonable.

English legal scholar Percy Henry Winfield summarized much of the literature by observing that:

“[H]e has not the courage of Achilles, the wisdom of Ulysses or the strength of Hercules, nor has he the prophetic vision of a clairvoyant. He will not anticipate folly in all its forms but he never puts out of consideration the teachings of experience and so will guard against negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common. He is a reasonable man but not a perfect citizen, nor a “paragon of circumspection. …”

This is the essence of American citizenry as conceived by the Founders and the standard to which all American citizens, regardless of time and place, must be held.

The reasonable person standard makes no allowance for the mentally challenged – those citizens who cannot reason or function in a reasonable manner as described above. Such a refusal goes back to the standard set in Menlove, where Menlove’s attorney argued for the subjective standard.

In the 170 years since, the law has kept to the legal judgment of having only the single, objective standard. Such judicial adherence sends a message that “the mentally challenged would do better to refrain from taking risk-creating actions, unless they are capable of exercising a heightened degree of self-restraint and precaution” – an unlikely capacity due to their mental challenges.

Generally, accepting recognized and diagnosed debilitating mental illness as a bar to the enjoyment of the full rights of citizenship is preferred because, unlike children or the physically disabled, members of the general public are usually unable to identify a person with a mental illness and therefore are unable to make the appropriate judgements with respect to their interactions – to either take appropriate precautions or to render appropriate assistance.

Finally, allowing for circumstances under which a person must act urgently is important in preventing hindsight-bias from affecting future comportment. Given pressing circumstances, a reasonable person may not always act in a manner similar to how they would have acted in a more relaxed setting. As such, it is only fair that actions be judged in light of any exigent circumstances.”

Words and Meanings

 Within the body of the Constitution of the United States, the words set down shall be interpreted according to the convention of that day. To that end:

“All” means “all”.

“No” means “no”.

“Shall” is a command, not a suggestion.

There are no “discoverable” rights, only enumerated rights.

“Minority” status confers no “special” rights.

“Majority” status confers no “special” burdens.

Freedom of speech implies the freedom to be heard.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion.

Freedom of the press does not imply freedom for a subversive press.

Freedom of assembly does not imply freedom to violently assemble.

Freedom to petition the government does not imply that the government may ignore the petition.

Freedom to cast a secret vote does not imply the freedom to cast a mentally impaired or coerced vote.

The enumerated “freedoms” shall be expanded to include “freedom of conscience” based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic

Common sense would also dictate the understanding – in the words of the late Senator Barry Goldwater – “that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”; “… that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”; “… that a government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

 Proposed AMENDMENT XXVII

          “Section 1. The governors of the several states shall establish and maintain active State militias in accordance with Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

          “Section 2. The State militias shall consist of an organized militia, also known as the National Guard of the State, and the State Guard, also known as the Reserve State Militia or the National Guard Reserve. The latter shall never be under the command authority of the federal government when called forth by the Congress in accordance with Article One, Section Eight, Paragraph 15. The governors of the several States may provide reserve State militia when requested but shall retain command authority. For arming, equipping, training and for other logistical matters, the State militias shall conform to federal procedures as much as possible.”

“Section 3. The reserve State militias shall be composed of volunteers in good standing in accordance with United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311, shall have a robust land, maritime and air component and an effective offensive and defensive cyber capability and shall be under the command authority of the Governors of the several States and shall customarily be under the direct command and control of the respective County Sheriffs of the several States .”

 Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the Amendment:

 “In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men – citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment’s notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.” 

 Democrat President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961) defining his concept of a “New Frontier”

 Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have the power: to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

 Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No state shall, without consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

 The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “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.”

 The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states:

 “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC) or state guard, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

(“Unorganized” is an administrative term that refers to State resident volunteers – serving in a State para-military force under the authority of the governor and the command of elected county sheriffs, to support the National Guard and the citizens of the State against domestic enemies and subversives (not common criminals) – not a description of a militia that is chaotic, undisciplined and therefore, dangerous.)

States shall have reserve State “militia” forces or “state guard” which are under the control of the governor of the State, and shall also act as a reserve for the National Guard and are thus a part of it for training, equipping and logistical support.

As described in the Militia Act of 1903, States shall create and maintain this reserve military force known in general as state defense forces to assist, support and augment National Guard forces during peacetime conditions. Also during the call up of National Guard forces for wartime or other emergency deployments under the direction of the President of the United States, State defense forces shall be used to assume the full military responsibilities for the State.

Because the State militias are under the authority of the governor and under the command of the county sheriffs, their budgets shall be controlled by the state legislative system. The sheriffs shall go to the State legislature for budget approval and disbursements for militia activities. Militia facilities shall be under State control, built on State land and not subject to local restrictions. Local political entities shall work with the county sheriffs as they would any other State entity for militia issues. County sheriff’s law enforcement activities – as the People’s police – shall be coordinated with local authorities, subject to the sheriffs’ status as independent elected officials.

Their mission shall include the defense of the State from internal and external threats of “Insurrections and … Invasions”, to ensure the “Laws of the Union” are faithfully executed, provide internal security and the enforcement of military orders when ordered by the Governor and also shall grant to the county sheriffs the authority to call upon the unorganized or reserve militia to uphold the peace, repel invasion, and suppress rebellion by those who would refuse to uphold all laws, including laws concerning illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking and subversion.

Next time: State Militia v. Gangs, cartels, subversives and terrorists.

The Convention of the States

With these two Constitutional tools in hand at the State level – the State Militia and the Subversives Act – and the national crises-caused Executive Branch precedents set by Washington and Lincoln as our guide, the States united shall convene a Convention of the States to propose numerous changes to the federal Constitution to undo the damage done in the previous decades by the PLDC and to prevent the damage from occurring again in the future. These changes shall be made to the body of the Great Document and also in the form of amendments. We should begin at the beginning.

 We would do well to follow the vision that Republican President Abraham Lincoln had for post-Civil War America as we consider how to “reconstruct” America in the 21st Century. He said this during the Civil War:

 “[Reconstruction means] submitting to the national authority under the Constitution. If questions should remain, we would adjust them by the peaceful means of legislation, conference, courts, and votes, operating only in constitutional and lawful channels …”

 The national authority Lincoln spoke of was the federal government. But, remember that the ultimate authority in our democratic republic is the People and, in the present case, the People – through the States united – again become the effective “national authority.” The federal government must always give precedence to the People – the same People who will now reconstruct the federal government through the Constitution and not through the barrel of a gun.

 According to historian George T. McKinsey, “Lincoln wished for a reunion that would be speedy, that would avoid radical change in the South, and that would employ southern unionists. Lincoln’s plan probably represented both his personal preferences for restoring the Union and his sense of practicality.”

 Those advocating Constitutional change today are the modern equivalent of both the northern and southern unionist. The PLDC represents the vanquished secessionists as that group harbored ill-will toward the unifying resolution of the nation’s issues and a return to Union. But, it is the PLDC union – as represented by the entrenched politicians and special interests in Washington, DC, and their acolytes entrenched in the nation’s great institutions – that has broken the States’ Union that now needs reconstruction, and needs the States’ help to get there.

 “Self-reconstruction, [Lincoln] believed, should be employed as an important weapon to end rebel [read PLDC] resistance, provide for future loyal governments [implying citizens loyal to the Constitution], and guarantee the permanency of ‘the noblest political system the world ever saw’.

 Although local cooperation was necessary, Lincoln increasingly came to understand that Union authorities [in the South] needed Washington’s leadership to get the Southern Reconstruction process moving [and we know that today, the Convention of the States must provide the leadership to get federal reconstruction moving].

 Former Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase argued in the summer of 1864 that Lincoln “…thought [the] best policy was to have no policy. I thought definite ideas and decisive action upon them important.” [Here are the definite ideas and decisive action.]

 West Virginia was born out of the secession debate and Unionists proclaimed state sovereignty in 1861. Lincoln believed;

 “She is now in the hands (of the previously elected State officials) of those who do not represent the people. The sentiment of her State officials must be counteracted. We must arouse the young men of the State to action for the Union”.

 Today, America is in the hands of the elected federal officials who do not represent the People. The sentiment of our federal officials must be counteracted. We must (again) arouse the young men of the several States to action for the Union. Hence, the State militia and the Subversives Act.

 He also saw the border state of Kentucky as crucial to reconstruction, saying;

 “We must know what men in Kentucky have the confidence of the people and who can be relied on for good judgment, that may be brought to the support of the Government at once.”

 Today, by the actions of thirty-four States in calling for a Convention of the States, we know what citizens in two-thirds of America can be relied on for good judgement.

 Historian Eric Foner noted: “The first Southern state to abolish slavery at least partially of its own volition was West Virginia, where blacks comprised only 5 percent of the population. Reconstruction, in a sense, began in 1861 when a convention of Unionists, meeting in Wheeling, repudiated Virginia’s secession and chose Francis H. Pierpont, a railroad attorney and coal mine operator, as the state’s legitimate governor.

 In 1863, West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a separate State, with the proviso that it abolish slavery. A popular referendum then approved a plan whereby all blacks born after July 4, 1863, would enjoy freedom. By the end of the war, complete emancipation had been enacted.”

 In Virginia, noted Allen C. Guelzo, “The Restorers did not abolish slavery and rejected even a proposal for gradual emancipation in December 1861. But they did forbid further importation of slaves, and when the Restored government petitioned for recognition as an entirely new state in May 1862, the Senate Committee on Territories made gradual emancipation a requirement.” 

 Of 1864, historian William C. Harris wrote: “The state convention proceeded with alacrity to adopt a new constitution for Virginia. On March 10, the convention approved a provision abolishing slavery, making Virginia the first Confederate state to provide for emancipation in its fundamental law.” 

 [If a Southern State, during a civil war over slavery, can peacefully and constitutionally make such a monumental change in its character, today’s issues should appear comparatively easy to resolve.]

 “At Lincoln’s urging, [West Virginia Governor Francis H.] Pierpont called a constitutional convention consisting of only seventeen men from thirteen counties, and in March 1864 it issued a new state constitution for Virginia that abolished slavery and dis[en] franchised all Virginians who voluntarily supported the Confederacy after January 1, 1864.”

 Lincoln was especially concerned with Louisiana, where Union control began in 1862. He wrote: “What we do want is the conclusive evidence that respectable citizens of Louisiana, are willing to be members of Congress & to swear support to the Constitution; and that other respectable citizens there are willing to vote for them and send them.” 

 The same remedy will be necessary for our reconstruction of the Union.

 “President Lincoln concentrated on Louisiana – pushing military and civil authorities to elect a new civilian government and a new constitution; Louisiana authorities had been split on which needed to come first. The statewide elections came in late February and a new governor, Michael Hahn, was installed in March. Then, he pushed for a constitutional convention that would abolish slavery in Louisiana. The constitutional convention, which abolished slavery, concluded on July 23; the constitution was ratified on September 5 by Louisianans who had taken the required loyalty oath. 

 Lincoln’s overall approach to Reconstruction was embodied in his Second Inaugural Address in March 1864:

 “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan…to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Lincoln’s reconstruction policies were not designed to punish the South, but to usher in a “new birth of freedom.” Lincoln said on the last full day of his life:

“No one must expect me to take any part in hanging or killing these men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off. Enough lives have been sacrificed; we must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There is too much disposition, in certain quarters, to hector and dictate to the people of the South, to refuse to recognise them as fellow-citizens. Such persons have too little respect for Southerners’ rights. I do not share feelings of that kind.”

 We are, in fact, at war with ourselves again. Lincoln’s words and actions auger well for this “second reconstruction” – the restoration of the primacy of the Constitution of the United States in its actual, original words, meanings, intentions, understanding, interpretation and implementation – and primacy for the People of the United States – the citizens from whom all power flows.

 Just as the constitutional compact between the People and the Union created by the Founders was ruptured by the secessionist South in Lincoln’s time, where slavers ruled through fear and intimidation, the Union was restored by State Constitutional Conventions and so also today, the constitutional compact between the People and their central government has been ruptured in our time by an insidious cabal intent upon creating in fact, an all-powerful central government that will rule over all people through fear, ignorance  and intimidation. This rupture must also be restored by State Constitutional Conventions – as in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and a Convention of the States as in 1787.

 When the Supreme Court can make new law by changing the very meaning of words and can divine the actual thoughts of the Founders after a quarter-millennium and the People’s current elected representatives with their readily available testimony and with the complicity of the nation’s Chief Executive, who usurped the legislative power from the Congress by choosing to enforce some laws and not others and to encourage the machinery of the federal bureaucracy to ignore the Congress and the Constitution and intimidate the People – then we, the People, must again call upon the State militias – our ultimate weapon against abusive government – just as Lincoln did against the abusive Secessionist States which were abusing captive human beings, to seal the rupture in our time – this time against another abusive federal government – this time on our side of the Atlantic – and return the nation to constitutional order through Constitutional Convention.

 Once constitutional order is restored, as a united and law-abiding nation, we can turn our attention to the insidious invaders, again command fear and respect from our adversaries abroad, begin to rebuild our relationships with allies and to reestablish our credentials as the land of the free – not the intimidated, the home of the brave – not the timid and the last best hope for humanity in the world.

 The Grand Strategy

 Therefore, our Grand Strategy must reflect the Judeo-Christian foundation of our culture and be focused upon a desire to encompass within our Great Document the imperative to preserve, protect and defend the timeless, universal and immutable truths of humanity – with all of its frailties and the human condition with all of its complexities (which are also included in God’s Great Document) – from all enemies foreign and domestic by maintaining an eternal vigilance, a strong economy, diplomacy, military, morality and culture to deter and, if necessary, defeat those who would seek to undermine those principles, internally and externally, and therefore do America harm – principles well understood by our forefathers – The People – the ones who actually ratified the Constitution.

 (Strategies for internal vigilance, homeland security, commerce, justice, the military, the economy, finance, health, infrastructure, communications/computing, education and language, maximizing creativity, equality of opportunity, the arts, science/technology/ engineering/ mathematics, diplomacy, the free and responsible press/media, morality, quality of life, the environment, the nuclear family, off-earth survival of the species and more will also be necessary.)

 It is essential to understand as best we can the original Constitutional conversation. Much work has already been done in this area but not many are conversant with it. As Jack N. Rakove has discussed, regardless of the intent of the framers or the meanings of the words included in the Constitution, it is the original understandings of the Ratifiers – the people in the thirteen original states – that must be preeminent in the current discussion about what is Constitutional and what is not.

 It is also necessary to clarify those specific articulated principles that have been under attack for generations by elitist political, judicial, intellectual, educational, artistic and journalistic cabals – the domestic enemies. We needn’t concern ourselves with individuals expressing their own thoughts about democracy and the Constitution, it is when these individuals insidiously coordinate their activities in order to affect clandestine changes – secretly and undemocratically – in the workings of the body-politic and the national culture.

 The vehicle for these clarifications is a Constitutional Convention called by the States as proscribed in Article V of the Constitution for the purpose of articulating several amendments and changes to the Constitution – just  as our forefathers – the Ratifiers – did after the Constitution was originally proposed. This, then, is what we must do at a Convention of the States.

 Quite a few people have recommended a Convention of the States in the recent past – some have written books about it (see Mark Levin: The Liberty Amendments). Of course, the PLDC goes into full apoplectic mode upon hearing such an idea – forget about any details. Their primary – probably their only – argument against the idea is that, once convened, the Convention could do whatever it wanted – what, like outlaw the tactics of the PLDC? Well, more power to it!

 Although worthwhile and heartily endorsed by the People, the Liberty amendments don’t address the cause of the problem – the disease – just the symptoms. The following changes and amendments will consign the cancer that is the PLDC to the medical waste bin of history. (Once again, the following is not advocating for the overthrow of the government of the United States. It is advocating for the restoration of truth in the public square so that, armed with the truth, any citizen can again cast an informed vote.)

 Recall the words of the Declaration:

 “…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.”

 and the musings of Madison and Jefferson long after their service in the Founding – that it was then, and shall forever be “…the experience the nation has had with governing under the Judeo-Christian ethic …” The Grand Strategy must be designed to implement the lessons learned from our shared experience with governing, specifically the exertions of subversive elements to undermine the Constitution and the resulting damage to the Constitution, our democracy and our culture. Therefore, the Convention of the States must first articulate a mission statement to abolish the elitist government of deception and deceit (the “it” in the preamble to the Declaration) and restore the government of, by and for – the People.

 (Note that Jefferson said that the three rights he specifically set out were three among others. We now must address the three and all of the others that have been under duress.)

 Proposed Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

 “Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of its intentions and deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, it shall be the purpose and mission of the United States of America, to preserve, protect and defend this Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, in order to maximize individual freedom and guarantee the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of each citizen by achieving, maintaining and defending cultural, financial, economic, industrial and military independence and seeking to enable a moral, stable, secure and orderly communion of nations on this good Earth;

 Acknowledging that all power is inherent in the People, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper;

 Understanding that the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (provided that the exercise of such rights does not prevent such pursuits by other citizens), granted by the Creator to the citizens of the United States, apply to all citizens and that all other rights enumerated in this document apply, as written, to citizens of sound mind, where common sense prevails and that there shall be no secret or hidden meanings found in the words of this document aside from common and ordinary usage, therefore:

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

(Note that none of this language is original, merely a restatement of language contained in multiple founding documents.)

Purpose statement:

 “To instill the sense of responsibility in every citizen of the United States of America to abide by the Judeo-Christian cultural ideals and the tenets of Western Civilization practiced by the Founders and the citizens of succeeding generations who settled the Continent, to create an America where peace, freedom and liberty preside over the affairs of man.”

 “To achieve the following objectives: acknowledge the centrality of the Judeo-Christian God and the consent of the governed; preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies; maximize individual freedom; guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; achieve, maintain and defend the cultural descending from the Western Tradition, financial, economic, industrial and military independence; seek to enable a moral, stable, secure and orderly communion of nations.”

 (Each will need to be addressed with a strategic plan. These concepts are contained in the oath of office elected officials take. The oath was inviolate in the days of the framers and Ratifiers. Apparently, it no longer is and so the necessity to make the concept constitutionally strong.)

Next time: The Declaration of Restoration

The Subversives Act

The first part of this post is an extremely dense legal example of what will be a central part of the solution to the tyranny of the PLDC. It is based upon the language of the Sedition Act, a woefully misguided attempt to prevent criticism of the new federal government by the Federalists shortly after the inception of the United States.  But, by turning it around so that it reflects the power of the People over the several governments, it becomes a powerful weapon to protect the People’s inalienable right to cast an informed vote – the very essence of or democracy. Skip past it to the explanation if you wish.

 The text of the Subversives Act of the Sovereign State of …

 “Section 1. That if any persons acting individually shall knowingly, employing the “reasonable man” standard, counsel, advise or act, or persons or entities enjoying the protections of the press, or the privileges of elected or appointed office, or the responsibilities of the sacred duty to educate those citizens who have yet to reach their majority, or who create and/or transmit content over the nation’s airways or digital pathways, convey information which is untrue or which is essentially fiction but purports to be factual or that creates the impression of being factual or that, through lie, distortion, innuendo, half-truth, ad hominem humor or similar constructs or, in any similar manner, is intended to confuse or deceive; or who shall combine or conspire together or shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure cooperation, with intent to deny any citizen the absolute, inalienable and irrevocable right to the truth in non-classified political speech about public matters and, in some cases private matters or withhold facts or truthful information or disseminate misleading information or disinformation about public matters, and in this manner confuse, deceive or interfere with the right of each citizen to prepare to exercise an informed vote, whether the activities aforementioned shall occur in concert with an election, or not, or whether they have the proposed effect, or not; they shall be removed from any and all opportunities to continue such activities for exigent circumstances and shall be prosecuted for subversive activity.

.“Section 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons or entities or actions described above, employing the “reasonable man” standard,  shall, or shall conspire to write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious political speech in writing or writings that have the effect of misleading or dis-informing any citizen and thus adversely effecting that citizen’s absolute, inalienable and irrevocable right to the truth about public matters and, in some cases private matters or, by these actions, bring any citizen into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation or national against the United States, their people or government, whether the activities aforementioned shall have the proposed effect or not, they shall be removed from any and all opportunities to continue such activities for exigent circumstances and shall be prosecuted for subversive activity.

 “Section 3. Information which is untrue or which is essentially fiction but purports to be factual or that creates the impression of being factual or that, through lie, distortion, innuendo, half-truth, ad hominem humor or similar constructs or, in any similar manner, is intended to confuse or deceive, which is labeled by the author or speaker as opinion or humor does not mitigate the subversion.

 “Section 4. The age of majority for federal purposes is twenty-one years from the date of birth, unless a citizen is engaged in national service, under which one’s majority shall become the date of enlistment.”

 “Section 5. An informed vote can only be cast by a sober voter. Any impairment of sobriety shall be a cause for a denial of the right to cast a vote in any election. A certification of sobriety may be demanded by an election official before a questionable vote can be cast or processed.

Section 6. Denying or revising historically true speech to convey the idea that it is untrue is not a protected activity.

 Addenda for future judicial reviews to clarify the meaning, understanding, interpretation, intention and implementation of the words of the statute:

This statute is specifically designed to avoid any conflict with 18 United States Code §2381§2385 addressing treason; misprision (concealment) of treason; rebellion or insurrection; seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of government. It is all about the sanctity of the truth in political speech, the responsibility of each citizen for the truth and the accountability of each citizen to preserve, protect and defend it.

Historian Timothy Snyder in his book; On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, writes:

“To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.”

 A democratic-republic can only succeed if there is a foundation based upon a strong moral order – a tried and true set of objective moral truths – not a set of personal feelings or whims that, because they are personal, defy unity hence, disunity reigns because there is no unifying concept of right or wrong. The primary moral truth is – the truth.

There is no excuse or justification for any deliberate assault on the truth in a democracy. If the People are unable to ascertain the truth about matters of public policy or concern or on matters of public safety and security, then the social contract between the People and the government is broken and the People must take on the responsibility of holding accountable those who would traffic in public lies whether overt or covert.

When it comes to the issues of the day in the public square, every citizen has the absolute, inalienable and irrevocable right to the truth about public matters and, in some cases private matters – except for classified matters concerning national security or official investigations – in order to protect their right to exercise an informed vote. In order to protect the right to exercise an informed vote, by all eligible citizens of the United States of America, from the withholding of facts or truthful information or the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation by entities functioning within widely accepted American institutions, this act is created.

 Understanding that there is no inalienable right to create untrue speech in the public square – that falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech specifically because it is untrue speech – and realizing that long term use of untrue speech connotes intent, this act properly expands the right to free speech by enhancing the character of truthful speech. Manipulation of the truth has become a major industry in the United States, is celebrated in progressive/liberal circles and negatively impacts every citizen’s ability to carry out their primary civic duty – to cast an informed vote.

 Subversives are persons, institutions or organizations seeking or intending to overtly or surreptitiously destroy the essence of a person or Constitutionally created or permitted system or institution, through the control and manipulation of information intended for the general public, either personally or through any organization receiving taxpayer support, any educational institution receiving taxpayer support, press/media or entertainment industry content created, broadcast or disseminated through means controlled by the federal government, for the purpose of circumventing or destroying Constitutional restrictions on the power exercised by the several governments.

 Subversion is an act of physical aggression in the form of methodically, deliberately and clandestinely withholding pertinent truth from the People, the purpose of which is to take the ultimate power from the People in this republic and deliver it to political elites for the purpose of denying the People their inalienable and Constitutional rights.

 An act of physical aggression against a people from within is commonly known as insurrection or rebellion. An insurrection/rebellion committed by enemies of the People and the state (domestic enemies) is not a matter for the police power of the state but, rather a matter specifically assigned to domestic military forces – the non-political State militias – provided for in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution – as utilized by President Washington in 1791 and by Republican President Abraham Lincoln in 1861.

 Domestic enemies can be either para-military marauders or subversive predators. Neither is amenable to judicial restraint. Both make effective “war” on the People and our culture, society and way of life as any external enemy would. The State militia is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with these enemies which is why it was included in the founding document.

 For the purposes of this act, subversion is any activity by any person or persons, entity or entities that has the effect of keeping, hiding, disguising, misinforming, dis-informing, not informing, inventing or discerning non-existent information or false, inappropriate or incorrect usage or misusage or meanings for the ordinary and universally accepted convention of common words or in any other manner preventing truth, factual information and truthful context from being available, learned, discovered, received, retrieved or in any other manner kept from any citizen, with the result of such acts of commission or omission thus compromising, through ignorance or fear, any citizens’ ability to complete the civic duties of informed voting, oversight, investigation, petition or exercising any other Constitutional right.

 Designing, mandating or using a school curriculum to be used in any institution of learning, at any level of education, that has as its outcome, intended or not, the miseducation of students with respect to any aspect of world or American history, civic affairs, foreign affairs or any other area of learning that would negatively impact the ability of that student to later exercise the right to cast an informed vote shall be considered subversion

 Because of the damage done to and the manner in which such activities inflict injury on the body politic, as seen by the manner in which many, if not most, ordinary citizens live in fear of the power of the federal government manifested as a tyranny of regulation by nameless bureaucrats, intimidation by police agencies of the Executive and terrorism by the federal courts, principally by the Supreme Court – power largely created and/or consolidated by the efforts of subversive citizens over the past seventy years – subversive activities are hereby categorized and classified as felony domestic terrorism – which uses fear as a standard weapon of intimidation and compliance.

 Persons participating in prima facie subversive activity shall be immediately prohibited and prevented from conducting whatever activity has been determined to be subversive. Voluntary compliance shall become a mitigating factor in their subsequent prosecution. Those who refuse to comply with the Act shall immediately forfeit their right to habeas corpus and shall be detained by appropriate authorities in designated “internment camps” until their cases are resolved. (It is beyond satisfying to name the detention centers “internment camps” – a direct reference to the Japanese-American unconstitutional experience under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in such camps during World War II.)

 Because of national security aspects of subversive activity and the secretive nature and pervasiveness of subversive activists and sympathizers within the great institutions of the United States, for the purposes of this Act, all cases shall be handled under the purview of the Judge Advocate General of the United States. In the case of State activity under this doctrine, the appropriate initial authority is the Army National Guard Judge Advocate.”

 Persons convicted of crimes where the abuse of mind-altering drugs or alcohol is an included offense must be publicly, medically certified as drug or alcohol free before voting in any subsequent election for a period of ten years.

 Control of information is fairly straightforward. Not so the false, inappropriate or incorrect usage, or misusage, or contrived meanings for the ordinary and universally accepted use of common words that sometimes is difficult to understand, especially in our litigious society, and often requires arbitration by the courts to provide clarification – like the Supreme Court that has, at various times, defined “no” as “yes”, “life” as “not life”, “all” as “some”, “unequal” as “equal” and declared a person the same thing as a State.A case in point is this historic example to demonstrate the necessity for action to curb subversive activity – the 2015 Supreme Court opinion in King v. Burwell.

Remember that the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court was defined in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), discussed earlier.  Italicized and underlined passages indicate where the Court violated Marbury – its earliest and longest standing precedent.

 In summary, “The majority of the Court found Obamacare so “inartfully drafted” that the Court essentially wrote the law for Congress through “statutory interpretation” – a blatantly unconstitutional action. [Whatever happened to “the letter of  the law”?]

 The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one; the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through “the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013).

 And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster convention. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation….

 Anyway, the Court said we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]” is unambiguous. [At 14-15] Here the Court uses a double-negative while nothing in precedent mentions redefining words!]

 Having found the term “established by the State” ambiguous [a stunning admission for learned lawyers], the Court read it in a way such as to save Obamacare and prevent a “death spiral” of the law:

 “Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988).

 Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid.

 Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpretation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 83 (1939). [Then the Court went right ahead and legislated.]

 For the reasons we have given, however, such reliance is appropriate in this case, and leads us to conclude that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. [Here the Court confers unambiguity on State exchanges!]

 Roberts and the majority did not want to be the ones to take down Obamacare, and that drove everything: Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

 Scalia’s dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, was stinging, and in my opinion, correct as to the absurdity of the Court contorting itself to save the law (as Roberts did in the original Obamacare challenge):

 The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says, “Exchange established by the State”, it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

 Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning: This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious – so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.

 In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So, an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State – which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

 Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”

 Scalia argued – persuasively – that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not [unconstitutionally by Marbury] exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language: “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

 Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”: The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges – both State and Federal.” (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)

 Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare: Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty.

 In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S.;

This Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So, it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax.

 The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So, it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion.

 Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So, it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.

 The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy: Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years.

 The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.

 And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

 I dissent.”

 The blatant intellectual dishonesty displayed by the five justices has no place in our republic and yet they expect – and the unwittingly ignorant and systematically misinformed public acquiesce to the expectation – that a Supreme Court ruling has the same effect as a constitutional amendment – enshrined in the nations’ DNA for time immemorial.

 If that belief stands, then the nation – the confederation of the fifty States – cannot stand because five unelected members of the Court cannot be allowed to have the same power as the majorities of the elected legislatures of thirty-eight of those States – the minimum number of States required to ratify a constitutional amendment.

 When the highest court in the land becomes one of the leading proponents of the deconstruction of language, the Constitution is, indeed, doomed.

 Likewise, when individuals or groups seek to deny the truth in historically true speech or activity, they are subverting our heritage – no matter how offensive to anyone or everyone – it might be – even to the “reasonable man”. Truth is truth and historical revisionism is offensive to the truth and hence, to the People.

 Finally, attaching the caveat “opinion” or” humor”, which is based on untruths as described in the act, about topics of import in the public square, is still subversive – the essence of opinion or humor being truth itself.

 This republic was instituted by the States – hence the name “The United States of America”. The States are sovereign entities in and of themselves and have never endowed the federal government with unlimited power to make law regardless of the limits imposed by the enumerated powers clause in the Constitution and/or the States’ wishes simply by unilaterally changing the meanings of words – and certainly not the wishes of a majority of the States – proclaimed through State legislation or by State constitutional amendment.

 The tyranny of the minority that the Founders feared has come to pass. There is now “legislation without representation” – legislation from the bench by unelected justices with lifetime appointments [at all levels of the federal court system, I might add.]

 The People must regain their power of representation by first amending their own State constitutions to reflect the changes indicated above – beginning with the “subversives act”.

 Once the American spirit is cleansed of the purveyors of perjuries in the public square by State militias under the States’ Subversives Act, it will be free from the slavery of the soul it has endured and can finally breathe freely of the truth – both good and bad – each in its own context, and the People can finally be the masters of their own manifest destiny – unburdened of those unworthy of the mantle of freedom bequeathed to them by the Founders.

 Recall that our forefathers came to America with a faith that they had a mission – eventually written into their Constitution – which they carried with them across the continent to fulfill their manifest destiny – and to become a beacon to the world yearning to breathe free – free from the tyranny of divine right; the tyranny of caste and the tyranny of the mob.

 The task would not be easy as divine right became the tyranny of government bought and paid for; caste became the tyranny of celebrity and the mob became the thugs of union labor, Jim Crow, urban rioters, racial extortionists and the anarchists of the early 21st Century – progressive liberal Democrats all.

 But, who are these protagonists and why do they perversely celebrate non-Christian-ness and non-Western Tradition-ness – both of which have been central to the development of the best nation humanity has ever created.

 The answer lies in the earlier discussion about diversity and multi-culturalism – about the ability of African, Hispanic, aboriginal and, in some corners, Islamic cultures to improve on the American version of the Western Tradition.

 The PLDC believes that America must incorporate elements of these cultures into our Western Tradition even if they are incompatible with Constitutional principles. If they succeed, America would become more tribal and less inviting to those who still flock to our shores to escape the primitive principles of tribalism in Africa, Central America, the Middle East and South Asia.

 So, why does the PLDC favor a tribal solution to all of our problems? Because tribal cultures feature the subjugation of the individual to the collective, the imposition of uniform beliefs, expectations and behaviors and favor group-think and group-action. The politics of division, the principal principle of the PLDC, relies upon group-think and group-action for success.

 The politics of division and special-interests would be more accurately described as tribal politics – the black tribe, the brown tribe, the red tribe, the female tribe, the LBGTQ tribe, the laboring tribe, the environmental tribe, the university academic tribe, the scientist tribe, the abortion tribe, the public-education tribe, the anti-religion tribe, the poor tribe, the jealous tribe, the envy tribe, the slothful tribe, the welfare tribe, etc.

 And they all are expected to think alike and respond to the same stimuli in the same way for the same reward – the stimuli being some dissemblance of the truth and the action being to vote for the anointed candidate and the reward being some government favor at the taxpayer’s (mostly white and of Northern European ancestry) expense. After all, cabal is just another word for tribe and this cabal has inserted itself into our national life – through legislators and activist judges, as the modern-day equivalent of the central Biblical protagonist, the reviled tax collector. How demeaning and condescending!

 The only group not fitting the tribal designation – those of the Western Tradition. America has long since evolved beyond the tribe in its celebration of the individual in the Constitution. As a Christian nation, with no apologies, we are a welcoming nation because that is what Christians have been instructed to do – to preach the Good News to all nations – the Good News of love, compassion, forgiveness, courage and, finally, peace – the very heart of the domestic tranquility written into the Constitution by the Founders.

Next time: The Convention of the States.

Statesmen to Subversives

he United States’ Constitution, written by the delegates to the first Convention of the States (popularly known as the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787), was composed by statesmen who had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the task. The vast majority had lost their fortunes but, none had lost their honor. The next Convention of the States will be convened to right the wrongs committed by dishonorable subversives at all levels of society and government who have labored for nearly a century to undo the work of the Founders and to improve their own lives and their fortunes at the expense of the People.

 It is time to rise up again against tyranny – this time the tyranny of the PLDC – and their reign of terror on the truth, the People and the Constitution. Just as the Founders proceeded – first with reasoned rhetoric, then with action – I propose that the first tactical step to secure a grand strategy to reclaim America is for the individual States to establish State Militias, as described above and then call a “State Convention” (essentially 34 of the states’ Republican caucus’ – the two-thirds threshold for Constitutional amendments contained in the Constitution – because the Democrat Party is part and party to this reign of terror) to set the agenda for the “Convention of the States” as described in Article V. of the Constitution of the United States, which states:

 “The Congress, … on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, … shall be valid to all Intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by the Convention in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …”

 The states most likely to call for a Convention of the States are those that have Republican governors and State legislatures, whose caucus’ can control the process of getting from a State convention to a Convention of the States. It won’t happen automatically and it won’t be easy because the PLDC will try and denigrate, disrupt, delay, divide and destroy the process at every opportunity. This is where the militias will come in handy. The minimum number of such states must be thirty-four for the Convention and (perhaps) thirty-eight for ratification.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Recall that the original Constitutional Convention was called for the purpose of improving the Articles of Confederation but its first act was to (secretly) declare that it would, in fact, write a new Constitution – which it then proceeded to do – again, in secret. The purpose of individual “State Conventions” will be to elect their representatives and define what their respective delegations will do at the Convention of the States.

 With State Militias organized in a sufficient number of States, the first order of business for the State Conventions shall be to draft the States’ “Subversives Act”. This Act is crucial because it will enable the removal of subversive elements of the PLDC from the public square and the consequent acts of the Convention of the States – since the “subversive activity” described in the Act is their standard modus operandi as shown exhaustively in the previous volume. It can then be passed in the State legislatures because of their majorities, signed into state law by Republican governors and enforced with the aid of the militias under the direct authority of the governors.

 Recall that the first “Convention of the States” did not include any remaining loyalists – that is, loyal to the British Crown or any delegates who believed that the status quo was acceptable or preferred. That was by design and no one complained about it back then. Allowing delegates of that persuasion would have led to deadlock – and no United States. Recall that the military governors of the former States in rebellion, following Lincoln’s guidance in 1865, removed all Democrat officeholders because their loyalty to the Union was questionable after secession. The circumstances are no different today.

 The loyalty of Democrat officeholders – elected and appointed – and their acolytes, to the Constitution and therefore, the Union, is again in question. The State militias, now operating under the new “Subversives Laws”, could remove all Democrat State officeholders and acolytes from the political process because of their loyalty to the tenets of the PLDC rather than the principles of the Constitution.

Conducting public proceedings during the first “Convention of the States” would have given the press a veto over any proposal because of their ability – perfected during revolution – to stir up the crowd against anything on the agenda. Stacking the deck for secret negotiations was essential for the Founders and therefore, is good enough for 21st Century Americans. The same concerns are present today where a compromised press/media would stir up public opinion with the same untruths that they have perfected over the past five decades.

 But first, we need to position subversive activity in the spectrum of offenses against the People. Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “domestic,” as separate from international, terrorism.   Among other things, a person engages in domestic terrorism if they commit an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a State or the United States or, if the act appears to be intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.

Coercion, of course, includes manipulating the truth provided to the electorate – comprehensively and constantly – for the purpose of influencing their votes. Coercion could also include promising the electorate things that are bad for them in order to influence their votes. Free everything is not good for any electorate – witness communism!

 Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

So, what does the PLDC encourage and allow that may be considered dangerous to human life or coercive or intimidating to the civilian population? Let me count the ways!

Allowing a virtual army of armed and dangerous members of drug cartels free access to the United States through an open border between the U.S. and Mexico by opposing any and all attempts to secure that border. The American death toll from their illegal activities is incalculable but has resulted in enormous populations in most of America’s large cities living in fear for their lives. This is a violation of countless laws intended to preserve the very sovereignty of the U.S. and the PLDC policy is to deny it is happening and thereby coerce the People into supporting policies they otherwise would not.

Allowing the smuggling of millions of pounds of illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, meth, etc., that are dangerous to human life), worth over $50 billion each year, despite more than 30,000 drug arrests. More than 25 million Americans are illegal or illicit drug users costing more than $200 billion in decimated families, lost productivity, health problems and incarceration. The PLDC wants to legalize illicit and illegal drugs in the United States.

Through their fierce opposition to secure borders, allowing deported illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies to re-enter the U.S. time and again and to remain in, so called, sanctuary cities – all run by Democrats! The death toll of the innocent from these thugs is in the hundreds but the motivation is unknown because these sanctuary cities shield them from prosecution. Ask the citizens of these cities if they feel safe in public. Democrat administrations refuse to enforce the laws that would prevent this. That is not only unconstitutional but, the PLDC policy is denying justice to the People and thereby they coerce and intimidate the People into supporting policies they otherwise would not. Sanctuary cities (and now states, are in open rebellion against the Union – refusing to obey federal laws, just as the Confederate states were in 1861.

Signing an agreement with the heart and soul(less) of radical Islamic terrorism – Iran – to enable them to develop nuclear weapons and the missile delivery systems that will put America in their sights – all without any input whatsoever from the People or their representatives. Do you think that will cause fear and intimidation? It is also a violation of the oath of office of every elected or appointed member of the PLDC – to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. and by telling America the only alternative is war, they thereby coerce and intimidate the People into supporting this policy they otherwise would not.

 Creating a federal takeover of the nation’s private healthcare system through legislation that was passed with only Democrat votes and sold to the American people through a series of lies such as: “…your healthcare payments will go down”; “…if you like your doctor, you can keep him/her”; identifying – to voters the – “individual mandate” penalty, for not having health insurance, as a “penalty”, then calling it a tax before the Supreme Court – in short, “MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.” according to respected author and commentator Charles Krauthammer

Interfering with the oversight function of the Congress, implemented in Madison v Marbury by thwarting the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s access to any and all pertinent information by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, thereby denying the People the truth about the workings of their federal government under the theory of “justice delayed is justice denied”.  By delaying the Inspector General’s findings to the Congress, information that may be important to voters can be denied to them until after a general election, thereby coercing their votes.

 Allows the Internal Revenue Service to target and threaten conservative political action committee (PAC) organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code by making outrageous demands for private information about contributors that are not required and not demanded of progressive/liberal PACs. This is the classic use of political coercion and intimidation but, no one has ever been prosecuted for their participation.

 Of course, I could go on. Mercifully, I won’t.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism but 18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that “…is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion.”  Section 802 does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating “terrorism.”  The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

 “Seizure of assets – Sec. 806:  Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of PLDC officials’ assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change.  Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.”

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney.

The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism.

“Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants (Sec. 219): This section of the USA PATRIOT Act amends Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to authorize the government to go before a single Federal magistrate judge in any judicial district in which activities relating to the terrorism may have occurred, to obtain a warrant to search property or a person within or outside the district. This means that if the government chose to go before a magistrate in New York, a person in California, who wished to seek to have the warrant quashed because he or she believed it was invalid, would have to find a way to appear before the New York court that issued the warrant. This would be a daunting task for most.

 Today, domestic terrorism is handled by Joint Terrorism Task Forces, called by the FBI “our nation’s front line on terrorism: small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all: chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment’s notice.

 The task forces are based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of their 56 field offices. A total of 71 of these JTTFs have been created since 9/11; the first was established in New York City in 1980. Today, the JTTFs include approximately 4,000 members nationwide—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—hailing from over 500 state and local agencies and 55 federal agencies (the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, to name a few).

Recall that there are nearly 2 million gang members and over 11 million illegal aliens operating within the United States and conducting questionable activities that likely fall under the USA PATRIOT ACT. With only 4,000 agents, those are not great odds.

 

The task forces coordinate their efforts largely through the interagency National Joint Terrorism Task Force, working out of FBI Headquarters, which makes sure that information and intelligence flows freely among the local JTTFs and beyond. They are also manpower limited and are not dealing with any of the real and present dangers presented by currently defined terrorists – the, literally, millions of unknowns who inhabit the United States.”

Using duly authorized State-militia assets for some of the Patriot Act violations involving political coercion and intimidation would enable the JTTF to better ulilize their limited resources to difficult investigative projects to be prosecuted under different statutes.

Now, let us revisit the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that “…is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion.”, and the Patriot Act: “…if the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Notice that neither of these definitions exclude members of the government itself from being offenders themselves and certainly not the tens of thousands of committed PLDC officeholders and acolytes operating under the aegis of the Democrat Party.

We have shown in the previous volume that the progressive/liberal/Democrat cabal, both inside and outside of government, has been practicing activities that are deliberately calculated to influence or affect the conduct of the People and therefore, the government at all levels by their systematic and methodical campaign to deny, distort, misrepresent, mislead, falsify, fabricate, pervert, corrupt and, in any number of other ways, prevent the People from receiving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their government and the condition of their country’s safety and security – thereby coercing them into support for PLDC candidates and favored government programs.

The “whole truth” includes rightfully public information that governments keep hidden. “Rightfully” means information, the disclosure of which does not present a real and present danger to the public nor does it lessen the safety of those associated with it. Government classified information is not rightfully public information but is subject to periodic review. No government information can remain out of the public arena solely to satisfy the desires of private individuals. There must be a public interest in its continued secrecy.

By so doing, they have coerced, and in some cases, have intimidated the People into supporting Democrat officeholders, Democrat candidates for office and favored government policies through their fraudulently compelled votes.

By so doing, the PLDC influences the policy of the government by making it possible to foist the progressive/liberal agenda on a manipulated and unsuspecting populace under the color of the truth but in actuality, far from the truth. I have decided to call this criminal activity (by the government’s very own definition) – subversion.

The dictionary definition of subversion is straightforward (Go ahead. Go to google.com, type in the word “subversive” and see what comes up.): “…an activity tending to or intending to subvert – that is: to overthrow, destroy or undermine an established or existing system, especially a legally constituted government or set of beliefs.” Implicit in this definition’s use of the word “undermine” is the concept of covert, hidden or secret activity, designed to accomplish the end without revealing the means. No description fits the activities of the PLDC better than “subversive”.

 The concept of contra-legal, or “criminal” subversion shall enter the legal lexicon through the State legislatures (the Republican State legislatures – since no Democrat legislator would touch the idea because it would mean his or her permanent retirement from the political area).

 The (proposed) Subversives Act of the Sovereign State of … Using the historical format for amendments to constitutions and the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2332b and the USA PATRIOT Act.”.)

 “The entire American system of jurisprudence is built upon a foundation of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before God. The vote – the fundamental building block of this jurisprudential system – must also be grounded in the truth since elected officials make the laws.

 In order to cast an informed vote, all citizens of the United States of America and the several States have a sacred right to truth in political speech about public matters and, in some cases, private matters, except in matters of a classified nature pertaining to national security or ongoing official investigations or proceedings where public knowledge would corrupt the process; in which case, the truth shall be made available immediately upon the conclusion of the particular proceeding.”

 Therefore; Next time: The Subversives Act.

Right-Wing Crazies

After 9/11, President Bush’s Executive Order was followed by the USA PATRIOT Act which defined “terrorist activity” as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organization or the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism.

It redefined the term “domestic terrorism” to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or are undertaken “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” while in the jurisdiction of the United States. Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering. All of these describe the activities of the “invading army” mentioned above.

 A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organization for the purposes of further terrorist activities. One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited “material support” for terrorists, and in particular included “expert advice or assistance.”

Those who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes affording material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to perform the terrorist act.”

By its own definition then, the United States is engaged in a war with domestic terrorists within the United States and its territories. These terrorists have invaded, and continue to invade the U.S. primarily through its Southern border and through abuse of an ill-defined visa system. These foreign soldiers are supplemented with self-radicalized (then foreign trained) American traitors. The staggering size of this invading “army” precludes the “law and order” approach on domestic soil just as the size of the international jihadist “army” precludes the “law and order” approach for terrorists on foreign soil – as the Obama administration eventually concluded with their enhanced drone-warfare campaign against jihadist leaders throughout the world.

 Just as it does overseas, the U.S. must confront this internal threat from a military perspective where it can provide enough people to the fight without the constraints of judicial process applied to persons who are non-citizens, illegally in the U.S. and functioning, for all intents and purposes as far as the U.S. citizenry is concerned, as both foreign combatants and domestic terrorists with no regard for American law or jurisprudence. They play by their own rules – lawless, ruthless, brutal chaos and mayhem.

 This is the historic role that State militias have played numerous times in our history and, since no rational person today can state that those in government have given us the “domestic tranquility” promised in the preamble to the Constitution, it is time for State militias to help reach that goal and keep that promise.

 Keep in mind that without State-militias providing necessary, armed manpower, there would have been no way to cast off the yolk of the British sovereign – the United States simply would not be; the Union could not have prevented the permanent secession of the Southern states – slavery might still exist on this continent; the capitalist economic system would have been destroyed by militant labor unions – to be replaced by what –  socialism?; and now, without State militias to provide necessary armed (and essentially free) manpower, the nation is being invaded and overrun by illegal alien unauthorized-combatants (migrants and visa holders) who are overwhelming our police forces, social systems and our economy – and that’s being done by the “good guys” – the invading “bad guys” are just murdering us with bullets, improvised explosive devices (IED) or drugs and all are planning to destroy our very way of life.

 Of course, the PLDC continues to try and demonize the numerous, informal para-military groups that already exist and, why wouldn’t they? Organized, authorized militias are a lethal threat to those who have been dismantling the customs, traditions and Constitution of this country for decades. Note how the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – that paragon of progressive/liberal righteousness – portrays them.

 “The 1990’s saw the rise and fall of the virulently anti-government “Patriot” movement, made up of para-military militias (sic), tax-defiers and so-called “sovereign citizens.” Sparked by a combination of anger at the federal government and the deaths of political dissenters at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, the movement took off in the middle of the decade and continued to grow even after 168 people were left dead by the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s federal building — an attack, the deadliest ever by domestic U.S. terrorists, carried out by men steeped in the rhetoric and conspiracy theories of the militias. In the years that followed, a truly remarkable number of criminal plots came out of the movement”

 This is a classic example of “PLDCSpeak” – a mutation of Orwell’s “double-speak”. First, they lump three very diverse groups together so that they can brand them all as “crazy”. The para-military militias are just that. They are groups of military enthusiasts who gather to share a common interest in military strategy, tactics, organization, skills, equipment, weapons, survival in the wilderness and, hopefully – politics.

 The other two groups, tax-defiers and “sovereign citizens” groups have interests in civil issues (not military issues) – the income tax and government encroachment in the People’s daily lives. They make their political points by defying civil authority, getting arrested and then getting attention from the press – who are only too willing to cover those “right-wing crazies”.

 The SPLC statement above then attempts to convince the reader – through innuendo – that some “militia” group was responsible for the bombing of the Murrah Courthouse in Oklahoma City. No” militia” group has ever been proven to have had anything to do with the bombing and the two actual bombers were not affiliated with any bona fide para-military group. Recall, once again, that a “militia” only exists in the Constitutional context of a State force under the control and authority of the governor.

 That, of course, doesn’t faze the lawyers at the SPLC. Like all disciples of the PLDC, they are only too eager to assume what the People think – in this case, because Timothy McVeigh was “steeped in the rhetoric” of “the movement” – what movement that is not clear – the “movement” is also guilty of this monstrous crime.

The official report of the incident at Ruby Ridge tells the story of a federal law enforcement bureaucracy run amok. The arrogance, callous indifference and incompetence is almost incomprehensible.

“Ruby Ridge was the site of a deadly U.S. government military-style operation resulting in a confrontation and seige in Northern Idaho in 1992 between  civilian Randy Weaver, his family and his friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the United States Marshal’s Service (USMS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It resulted in the death of Weaver’s son Sammy, his wife Vicki, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan.

On August 21, 1992, six U.S. Marshals were sent to scout the area to determine suitable places away from [Weaver’s] cabin to ambushand arrest Weaver for failure to appear in court on a civil matter. The marshals, dressed in military camouflage, were equipped with night-vision goggles and M16 rifles. DUSMs Art Roderick, Larry Cooper and Bill Degan formed the reconnaissance (Recon) team, while DUSMs David Hunt, Joseph Thomas and Frank Norris formed an observation post (OP) team on the ridge north of the cabin. [Doesn’t read like a normal operation involving the apprehension of a U.S. citizen in a civil matter, does it?]

The observation team marshals and the Weavers both claimed the Weaver dogs were alerted to the Recon team marshals in the woods after neighbors at the foot of the mountain started their pickup truck. The Recon team marshals retreated through the woods to the “Y” juncture in the trails 500 yards west of and out of sight of the cabin.

The dogs and the boys came out of the woods and a firefight erupted between the marshals and Sammy Weaver and Harris, who was with them. Accounts differ at this point as to who first opened fire but agree that DUSM Roderick shot and killed Weaver’s dog and that Samuel Weaver returned fire at Roderick. After the Federal agents began firing, 14-year-old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while running away, and DUSM Degan was shot and killed by Harris, attempting a defense. The men retrieved the body of Sammy Weaver and placed it in an adjacent cabin.

The ballistics evidence presented at trial (and cartridge counts on the Marshals’ guns performed by DUSM Mark Jurgeson) showed: Art Roderick fired one shot from an M16, Sammy Weaver fired three rounds from a .223 Ruger Mini-14, Bill Degan fired seven rounds from an M-16 while moving at least 21 feet, Larry Cooper fired six rounds from a 9mm Colt submachinegun, and Kevin Harris fired two rounds from a .30-06 M1917 Enfield Rifle, for a total of nineteen rounds fired [5 by the subjects and 14 by the government agents].

After the shootout on August 21, Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus declared a state of emergency in Boundary County, which allowed the FBI to use the Idaho National Guard Armory at Bonners Ferry and, after an initial delay, to use National Guard armored personnel carriers (APCs). Several hundred federal agents surrounded the house and  negotiations for a surrender were attempted. [Negotiations begin after the death of a 14-year old boy.]

On August 22, the second day of the siege, the FBI sniper/observer teams were deployed around the cabin while an armored personnel carrier carrying negotiators approached to make a surrender callout at the cabin. 

Before the negotiators arrived at the cabin, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, from a position over 200 yards north and above the Weaver cabin – intending to kill – shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the back with the bullet exiting his right armpit, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son. 

Then, as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi fired a second bullet, killing Vicki Weaver, and wounded Harris in the chest. Vicki Weaver was standing behind the door through which Harris was entering the house, holding their 10-month-old baby Elisheba in her arms. Horiuchi never actually sighted Vicki Weaver.

On August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:

“OPR 004477
Something to Consider
1. Charge against Weaver is B***S***.
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver’s defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting [of Degan].

5. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position.”

The stand-off was ultimately resolved by sympathetic civilian negotiators including Bo Gritz, Jack McLamb, and Jackie Brown. Harris surrendered on August 30. FBI Commander gave Gritz a deadline to get the remaining Weavers to surrender, or else the standoff would be resolved by a tactical assault. 

Randy Weaver and his daughters surrendered the next day. Both Harris and Randy Weaver were arrested. Weaver’s daughters were released to the custody of relatives, although some consideration was given to charging Sara, who was 16, as an adult.

At the trial that followed, Weaver was ultimately acquitted of all charges except missing his original court date and violating his bail conditions, for which he was sentenced to 18 months and fined $10,000. Credited with time served, Weaver spent an additional 4 months in prison. 

The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit for $200 million. In an out-of-court settlement in August 1995, the federal government awarded Randy Weaver $100,000 and his three daughters $1 million each. The government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki. On the condition of anonymity, a DOJ official told the Washington Post that he believed the Weavers probably would have won the full amount if the case had gone to trial.

The Weaver family, including Randy, later moved to Kalispell, Montana, where Sara and the other two Weaver daughters are employed. After becoming a born-again Christian, Sara Weaver said in 2012 that she had forgiven the federal agents who killed her mother and brother.

At the completion of the trial, the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility formed a Ruby Ridge Task Force to investigate Spence’s charges. The 1994 Task Force report was released in redacted form by Lexis Counsel Connect and raised questions about the conduct and policy of all the agencies.

To answer public questions about Ruby Ridge, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information held a total of 14 days of hearings between September 6 and October 19, 1995, and subsequently issued a report calling for reforms in federal law enforcement to prevent a repeat of Ruby Ridge and to restore public confidence in federal law enforcement. [The “terrorism” in this case was actually perpetrated by the federal government. No action was ever taken against any of the federal participants].

Rather than assigning responsibility for out-of-control para-military action to the federal government – where it belongs, the SPLC distorts the record to assign blame to officially innocent civilians. Since these are lawyers and professionally should search for the truth, this conduct represents a classic case of subversion, which should be a punishable offense against the People.

Subversion is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within; also, “the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution; for example, “the ruthless subversion of democracy.”

The SPLC also misrepresents the “monstrous crime” that occurred in Waco, TX. The Waco siege was a seige of a compound belonging to the religious group, the Branch Davidians, by American federal and Texas State law enforcement, and US military between February 28 and April 19, 1993. 

The Branch Davidians, a sect that separated in 1955 from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, was led by David Koresh, who envisioned himself as messianic, and lived at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Elk, Texas, nine miles east-northeast of Waco. The group was suspected of weapons violations and a search and arrest warrant was obtained by the ATF. No actual weapons use was ever alleged and none occurred prior to an ATF attack of the compound.

At the direction of Democrat President Bill Clinton’s U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, the “Waco Incident” began when the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attempted to conduct a military-style raid (ironically) at the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians.

Upon the ATF’s failure to succeed in their raid at the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women and children, including David Koresh, died.

The government justified the loss of life by claiming that the Davidians had started the fire. That has never been independently verified but, the larger point is – the Davidians were not a right-wing para-military domestic terrorist group as portrayed by the PLDC and the SPLC – they were a religious congregation of men, women and children.

No one in the federal government was ever held accountable for the massacre at Waco.

Finally, the SPLC announces that a “truly remarkable number of criminal plots came out of the movement” without any corroborating information, especially information that would link these plots to any bona fide para-military group. Probably because there isn’t any.

 The SPLC is very influential with the PLDC and has been instrumental in the labeling of bona fide para-military interested groups as “terrorist organizations”. During the Obama administration, a Washington Times article stated:

 A new Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment circulated this month focuses on the threat of right-wing sovereign citizen extremist groups in the U.S. Some law enforcement groups say the threat is equal to, and occasionally greater than, the threat from Islamic extremist groups. [What!!!???] The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign- citizen related attacks across the U.S. since 2010, CNN reported. [The actual number is zero, as in none]

 The Homeland Security Department issued a similar report on the threat of right-wing terrorist groups in the past, garnering criticism for the Obama administration. A 2009 Homeland Security report on possible recruitment of military veterans by right-wing “militia” groups prompted an outcry from veteran’s groups.”

 By painting with as broad a brush as possible, the federal government is staining the reputations of legitimate civilian groups, including many organized by former military veterans in good standing – as is their absolute right because of the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution. Based on the behavior described above, it appears that the federal government is the organization acting just like a domestic terror group – unlike the ones it has falsely accused of being “right-wing terrorists”.

 With the proper formation of Constitutionally-mandated unorganized militias (National Guard Reserve) in the several States, one thing will become clear – if any group of para-military individuals is not operating under and with the authority of the governor – it is NOT a militia – just as none of the groups mentioned above was a constitutional militia. At least the PLDC should be able to get that right.

 As important as knowing what a State Militia is and how it should be utilized is knowing what it is not. It is not a police force. It does not operate under the police powers of the state. It is to be used against enemies of the state – domestic enemies and operates in accordance with the Law of War – as in “War on Drugs”, “War on Terrorism”, etc.

 The PLDC will, of course, label this concept as the “militarization of America” and try to equate it to Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Communist China or the Soviet Union. And, of course, they would be historically wrong because those regimes all had the same thing in common. They were all government militarizations created to deprive their people of their basic human rights. State-militias are citizen created organizations meant to guarantee the People of their God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The two effects are diametrically opposed.

Police departments do not deal with enemies of the state – foreign and foreign-inspired actors whose mission is to threaten, intimidate, terrorize and kill Americans and who must be physically stopped at all costs before they kill Americans. It is not a situation that lends itself to “due-process”. They demand sanction as soon as they accept their orders as they then have taken up “arms” against America – “arms” being a euphemism for intending to kill Americans and/or destroy Americans’ way of life.

Police deal with the citizenry – all of whom are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There have been numerous incidents where members of the armed forces have been employed in the presence of civilians. Almost none of them ended well. Kent State comes to mind.

 There, the soldiers at Kent State on May 4, 1970 were members of the National Guard. They were conscripts – drafted into the military during the Vietnam War. They were afraid to engage with innocent American citizens. A State-Militia would be composed of volunteers. They wouldn’t volunteer if they were afraid and would never be employed against innocent American citizens. Crowd control is a police activity, not a military one.

 Enemies of the state are engaged under the laws of war and are not presumed innocent and will never go before a civilian court of law. Rather, if proceedings are required, they will be conducted by military tribunal.

 Perhaps a theoretical tease for a fictional movie or TV show about the militia might prove enlightening for today’s “digitally connected” citizenry.

 “I fought at Lexington and Concord, at New Orleans, at Gettysburg and Shiloh. I fought under Washington and Jackson and Grant. My mission is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and my neighbors and to ensure domestic tranquility. I am your parent, your sibling, your cousin, your colleague, your neighbor. I am the Minuteman.”

Next time: Statesmen to Subversives

They’re Killing Our Kids

This discussion about State militias has been related to the subversive nature of power and its actuaries – who are called “subversive elements” and are fatally corrosive of society. Eliminating the subversive elements from society is not the only reason that State militias are necessary. Consider this.

The urban gang issue is the most dangerous physical, social and cultural force in American society today. There are an estimated 1.5 – 2 million gang members associated with more than 30,000 gangs in the U.S.! More than 50% of them are illegal aliens – that’s over three-quarters of a million foreign-borne and armed combatants fighting against America – in America – today. They are the very definition of domestic enemies that every elected and appointed government official pledges to protect us from and they have all of the qualities of a military force – military ranks, unit organization, uniforms (jeans, t-shirts, cool hats, lots of bling), insignia in the form of tattoos, firearms, codes of conduct, unyielding discipline, intelligence units, secret codes, spies, camp followers, strategic plans and tactical operations designed to destroy the enemy’s (that’s us) will to resist.

These gangs are funded by crime and, no doubt, elements in their homelands – Latin-America for the Latino gangs, China for the triads, Russia for the ethnic Russian crime-communities in New York City, sub-Saharan Africa for – mainly Muslim – African refugees, etc., and they have virtually unfettered access to America and Americans across porous borders and a State Department run visa program that is irretrievably broken. They are beyond being a law and order problem. They are a strategic military threat to the existence of the United States as we know it. To wit:

There are only about 1.25 million police officers in the U.S. and only a fraction of them are arrayed against the gangs. In Chicago, the urban murder capital of the country, there are about 100,000 gang members and only 250 police officers in the anti-gang units of the city – out of 12,250 sworn officers – that’s two percent – 2%! Applying that to the entire country means that there are 25,000 cops in anti-gang units to confront almost 2 million gang members – they are outnumbered by a staggering 70 to 1. There are more than 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state of Texas alone.

Gangs are involved in 80% of the crime that occurs in America! They are involved in illegal immigrant smuggling in order to get more recruits. They cultivate, ship, distribute and sell drugs – from heroin to marijuana to medical narcotics like opioids to cocaine (especially crack) to synthetic drugs that defy legal description and so cannot be prosecuted.

More people die each year in the United States than were killed in Vietnam – the war the PLDC loves to use as an example of what is wrong with America. Fully 10% of the U.S. population use illegal/illicit drugs – designed to destroy our population from within – on a continuing basis and the PLDC is clamoring for legalization!

They traffic in illegal firearms. Most firearms used in crimes in America come from this activity – not from the legal sale of firearms by licensed dealers. They engage in human trafficking, especially sexual slavery. The staggering number of children who go missing every year – more than 500,000 – are very likely to be eventually taken by human traffickers.  They terrorize innocent citizens who, unfortunately, live in the major urban areas of the country, through “shakedown schemes” like “protection” rackets – pay a “protection fee” or get beaten, lose your business, or worse. They are now expanding into small towns across America.

“The most notorious gang is known as MS13 – a Latin-American gang. Mara Salvatrucha is a trans-national crimunal gang that originated in Los Angeles’ Pico’Union neighborhood and has spread to other parts of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America. The majority of the gang is ethnically composed of Central Americans (mostly Salvadorans) and are active in urban and suburban areas nationwide.

In the U.S., the MS-13 has an especially heavy presence in Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area in Northern California; the Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas of Fairfax County, Virginia, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Prince George’s County, Maryland; Long Island, New York; the Boston, Massachusetts area; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Houston, Texas.

Members of MS distinguish themselves by tattoos covering the body and often also, the face, as well as the use of their own sign-language. They are notorious for their use of violence and a sub-cultural moral code that predominantly consists of merciless revenge and cruel retributions. This cruelty of the distinguished members of the “Maras” or “Mareros” earned them a path to be recruited by the Sinaloa drug cartel battling against the Los Zetos in an ongoing drug war south of the United States border in Mexico which has claimed more than 100,000 lives in the last decade. 

Originally, the gang’s main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans and African-Americans. According to the 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment; “The gang is estimated to have 30,000 to 50,000 members and associate members worldwide, 8,000 to 10,000 of whom reside in the United States.

Many Mara Salvatrucha gang members from the Los Angeles area have been deported after being arrested. [Of course, they soon return – again and again.] As a result of these deportations, members of MS have recruited more members in their home countries. The Los Angeles Times contends that deportation policies have contributed to the size and influence of the gang both in the United States and in Central America.” Of course they have – because the southern U.S. border is completely inadequate, unable to stop ANY illegal entry but, the Los Angeles Times apparently doesn’t see the connection. It does, of course, it just chooses to lie about the connection.

Their numbers have obviously increased in more recent years and a U.S. population of 12,000 – 20,000 is not unrealistic. Their wide-ranging activities have drawn the attention of the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who have initiated wide-scale raids against known and suspected gang members – claiming hundreds of arrests across the country. Unfortunately, that represents 1% of the gang, who are quickly replaced through the porous Southern border.”

Simply put, much of the urban population throughout the United States who live in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington DC, St. Louis, Oakland CA, Memphis, Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Stockton CA, live in war-zones, under the brutal control of invading armies of para-military soldier-thugs, where violence and death are a daily occurrence and fear is a constant companion.

This is completely unacceptable in modern America and there is no plan in place or in the planning stages – nothing – from the nation’s progressive liberals that will do anything to stem the tide of carnage and chaos in the lives of our most vulnerable citizens who endure the traumatic loss of family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and schoolmates on a daily basis. Teenage sons trying to protect their single-mothers and siblings from drugs and violence (many murdered for their effort), young girls easy prey for gang thugs involved in prostitution – think of what that does to a family’s psyche.

Despair is the least of the effects. Hyper-tension is one of the leading causes of deaths in the minority urban areas and the stress of living in gang-infested neighborhoods is the leading cause of hypertension. By not leading the charge against foreign influenced urban gangs, the PLDC is killing its own supporters. If only they knew but, that’s not possible because the PLDC has control of nearly all channels of information and they aren’t talking about this issue.

Just imagine what a substantial, trained and equipped State-militia, arrayed in known gang areas – and at the Southern border, could do to deny gangs sanctuary – from which this invading army spreads its own brand of death, destruction and terror in towns and cities across this nation – through a sheer force of numbers. Just a presence would be more than enough to deter most gang activity since they only operate in the shadows.

If State-militias in America’s 3,100+ counties recruited just one percent of the eligible population, that would confront the gangs with about one million armed, trained (many combat experienced) and organized volunteer soldiers who would be directly protecting their home territory and families from violent foreign invaders. That’s only a 1.5 – 1 disadvantage in numbers – not a 70 to 1 deficit. What do you think would happen?

For perspective, our State capital, Nashville, is in Davidson County with a population of about 660,000 residents. The Nashville Police Department has 1,315 sworn officers and a gang unit of 37. There are about 5,000 identified gang members in Davidson County, including MS13 – most are in Nashville. The gang unit is outnumbered by 135 to 1. Does that sound rational?

If there was an established State-militia in Davidson County, under the leadership of the Davidson County Sheriff, there could potentially be about 2000 eligible members (a brigade, or 20 companies with about 2 gang unit liaison  officers each) – a numerical disadvantage of only 5 to 2! Sounds a lot more effective to me and, they serve for free.

Another major issue where State militias may be of value is the “War on Drugs”. This is an American term commonly applied to a campaign of prohibition of drugs, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade into and throughout the United States. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the United Nations have made illegal.

The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by Republican President Richard Nixon – the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control – during which he declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” [as in domestic enemies]. That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the “prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted”, but that part, naturally, did not receive the same public attention as the term “war on drugs”.

The major suppliers of drugs to the United States are the Mexican drug cartels, trans-shipping cocaine and heroin from South America, who say that the reason they engage in a brutal drug trade is because Americans crave drugs. Traditionally, drug use has been associated with the monied classes and the poor. What brought illegal, addicting drugs to the middle class?

Illegal drugs entered the middle-class in force through their college-age children beginning in the early 1960’s. These children of the “greatest generation” were first exposed to the mind-addled counter-culture and its gurus on elite college campuses, mostly in the big cities like New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia where these now mentally-challenged pseudo-intellectuals set up shop after World War II and the end of the New Deal.

“Turn-on, tune-in and drop out” was the battle cry of these pied pipers – led by the flamboyant and loquacious Dr. Timothy Leary of the most elite university of all, Harvard University. Leary and his associates, some of them quite famous, elicited behavior that can best be described as bizarre but, his influence on the developing minds of the generation of American college students in the 1960’s and 1970’s was profound.

Upon graduation, these “baby boomers” took their mind-altering college academic experience and their mind-addled college drug experience into the workforce – men and women alike. For the most part, they managed to keep their drug-lives hidden from their “greatest generation” employers – who would never accept the productivity ebbing, initiative sapping, reliability destroying effects of drug use in their companies. Most started families. Some were elected to high-office (no pun intended).

As we have already seen, illegal drugs also entered the middle class through the war in Southeast Asia in the 1960’s, where senior political and military leaders completely failed in their duty to the American people to care for the sons and daughters under their command. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans returned from that war damaged and dependent upon illegal drugs to cope with everyday life and with rejection by their fellow countrymen. They too started families.

Unfortunately, their children were watching and could not help but witness the hypocrisy. They learned their lessons well and continued their parents’ voluntary and involuntary legacies when they went out on their own. In the mid-1960s, only 3% said they had used marijuana. By 1973, that figure had climbed to 12% – a 300% increase. Usage climbed to 38% by 1981. By 1999, it was at 34% but, unfortunately, it had been replaced by meth, crack and opioids. Today, over 30 million Americans regularly use illegal or illicit drugs and more than 90 million occasionally use marijuana – that’s one out of three over the age of 12!

We, as a nation, are now three generations into the illicit drug era and the cartels have noticed. They have three generations of drug abusers to feed and are now targeting the fourth.

Pre-teen children are now being lured into the life of drug addiction. Marijuana, of course, is the gateway – cool, innocent, harmless, non-addictive with no side-effects – and cheap. All myths! Next comes meth, crack cocaine and heroin and prescription drugs from their parents’ medicine cabinets.

The drug-dealing domestic enemies are killing our children! If that’s not an act of war, then we don’t deserve to be called a free nation.

“Although Nixon declared “drug abuse” to be public enemy number one in 1971, the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914. 

 Less well-known today is that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2-10 year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand-reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the “Drug Czar” in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the “war on drugs”. DuPont also argued that it was the proponents of drug legalization that popularized the term “war on drugs” to get sympathy for their position.

The present state of incarceration in the U.S. as a result of the war on drugs arrived in several stages. By 1971, different campaigns against drugs had been implemented for more than 50 years (e.g. since 1914, 1937 etc.) with only a very small increase of inmates per 100,000 citizens. During the first 9 years after Nixon coined the expression “War on Drugs”, statistics showed only a minor increase in the total number of imprisoned.

In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%. The US Department of Justice, reporting on the effects of State initiatives, has stated that, from 1990 through 2000, “the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates.” In 1994, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the “War on Drugs” resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year. In addition to prison or jail, the United States provides for the deportation of many non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was originally established by the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, which mandated a national anti-drug media campaign for youth, which would later become the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar, and it was first implemented in 1989 under Republican President George H.W. Bush, and raised to cabinet-level status by Democrat President Bill Clinton in 1993. These activities were subsequently funded by the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1998. The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998 codified the campaign at 21 U.S.C. para 1708.

And then came the first President born after World War II – a “baby-boomer” President who grew up in the ‘sixties and the first to admit drug use – although he said he “never inhaled”. Right. He was Arkansas Democrat Bill Clinton.

According to author of “This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America”, Ryan Grim, “During the first year of his administration, President Bill Clinton made free trade a top priority, pushing for the passage of the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It wasn’t an easy task. Having helped Democrats take the White House for the first time in twelve years, organized labor was in no mood to see manufacturing jobs shipped to Mexico.

The debate was difficult enough without having to talk about the sprawling Mexican drug trade and its attendant corruption. And how the agreement would also end up benefiting the cartels. So, he ordered his people not to talk about it. [They didn’t and the dutiful press/media didn’t either, so the “whole truth” – known to Bill Clinton – never got to the American people.]

“We were prohibited from discussing the effects of NAFTA as it related to narcotics trafficking, yes.” Phil Jordan, who had been one of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s leading authorities on Mexican drug organizations, told ABC News reporter Brian Ross four years after the deal had gone through. “For the godfathers of the drug trade in Colombia and Mexico, this was a deal made in “narco-heaven.”

The agreement squeaked through the Democrat Congress in late 1993 and went into effect January 1, 1994, the same day that the Zapatistas rose up in southeast Mexico. With its passage, more than two-million trucks began flowing northward across the border annually [where few had gone before]. Only a small fraction of them were inspected for cocaine, heroin, or meth.

The opening of the border came at an opportune time for Mexican drug runners [and their Cali, Columbia suppliers], who had recently expanded their control of the cocaine trade [with the demise of Pablo Escobar and the Medellin, Columbia drug cartel] and made major investments in large-scale meth production. Both were unintended consequences of U.S. policies in the seventies and eighties aimed at crushing meth and cocaine with a militarized, enforcement-heavy approach.

Now NAFTA had presented Mexican cartels with one more unintended opportunity springing from U.S. policy. In a 1999 report, the White House estimated that commercial vehicles brought roughly 100 tons of cocaine into the country across the Mexican border in 1993. With NAFTA in effect, 1994 saw the biggest jump in commercial-vehicle smuggling on record – a 25 percent increase. The number of meth-related emergency-room visits in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1994. In San Diego, America’s then meth capital, meth seizures climbed from 1,409 pounds in 1991 to 13,366 in 1994. It is not unreasonable to posit a similar increase in cocaine traffic after NAFTA went into effect.

In 2008, the Washington Post reported that of 1.5 million Americans arrested each year for drug offenses, half a million would be incarcerated. In addition, one in five black Americans would spend time behind bars due to drug laws.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report on June 2, 2011 alleging in its title that “The War on Drugs Has Failed“. The commission was made up of 22 self-appointed [and probably monetarily self-interested in the end of the “war”] members including a number of prominent international politicians and writers. U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin also released the first ever National Prevention Strategy. It cited the fact that the amount spent annually in the U.S. on the war on drugs was more than $51 million while the number of people arrested in the U.S. on nonviolent drug charges was about 1.5 million.”

Nothing has succeeded in stopping the importation and distribution of illegal and murderous drugs into this country. It’s no longer just affecting dysfunctional families in the poor precincts or among the wealthy – dysfunction is all around us – in every neighborhood in this country. Trying the same things over and over means that we are, truly, insane. It’s long past time for the People to get involved and revolt again against the status quo which continues to kill our children.”

Our own Nashville mayor lost her only son to the drug wars. He had ingested four different illicit and illegal drugs with evidence of a fifth. He never had a chance against the “drug army” and was, in reality, a casualty of war – a war our federal government has been ineptly fighting for over forty-five years!

As mentioned above, another function for the State-militias would be keeping the peace in the community when “Antifa” or other anarchist groups seek to disrupt peaceful assemblies of the People for political events such as peaceful, authorized demonstrations, political events, private speeches and by other nefarious means – thus preventing the free exchange of ideas so essential to a vibrant democracy.

Local police have demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of maintaining peace in the nation’s streets when confronted by organized progressive/liberal mobs. These groups are organized, trained, directed and funded by “foreign State actors” in that they are not community-based but actually “invaders” of communities for intimidating, confrontational, partisan, political ends that prevent the free exchange of ideas and do not respect the sovereignty and tranquility of the local populace. They are, in effect, domestic enemies of the communities they invade and must be dealt with by those forces designated to defend the community against “foreign invasion” – the State militia. (More about this later.)

Finally, but most urgently, the issue where organized State-militias would be of most immediate value is in combatting foreign-inspired radical Islamist jihad – domestic terrorism! From foreign-trained terrorist thugs allowed into the United States as dual-citizens, or native-born terrorists who have been radicalized overseas or in America’s prisons, or lone-wolf terrorists radicalized online, these fanatics pose a mortal threat to every single American.

Since the 2,976 deaths of innocents on September 11, 2001, by the time of the inauguration of Donald Trump, there had been 44 separate attacks in America committed by foreign-inspired and (mostly) military-trained radical Islamic terrorists who were officially allowed (or allowed to return from Muslim hotbeds of radicalism) into the United States. In those 44 attacks, 140+ innocents have been killed – including more than 50 in a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016 – plus 19 American service-members in separate attacks.

In each and every one of these attacks, the killers had disclosed their radical-Islamist beliefs to friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, fellow Muslims and/or online long before their attacks. Yet, no one, not one person with such information has ever disclosed it to authorities.

Americans love protest marches yet, not one significant American-Muslim march to protest radical Islamic terror has ever occurred in America. With polls showing that about half of the Muslims in the United States believe in jihad (meaning religious warfare to propagate the Muslim faith), assistance from the most probable sources cannot be expected. It is, therefore, critical that the United States develop reliable human-intelligence sources within the Muslim community.

America is at war. We have officially been fighting drug abuse for almost a century – formally for 45 years. Six Presidents (Barrack Obama excepted) have personally waged war on drugs.  Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing.  The annual cost to the taxpayers continues to rise and drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons.

The Mexican cartels and gang-led drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods. Our failed border control policy continues to allow more and more illegal alien drug runners and gang members to cross the Southern border at alarming rates. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. Even in times of lower reported numbers of illegal border crossings, you can rest assured that the flow of drugs and drug traffickers has not diminished.

The only beneficiaries of this war are organized-crime members, street-gangs and drug dealers – including American medical doctors who operate opioid pill factories. Do you see the problem? We are fighting two wars – against jihad and against drugs – without a military. We are trying to win with police. Apologetically, we are bringing a knife to a gunfight!

Unfortunately, the PLDC sees the self-declared “War on Drugs” as unpalatable and unwinnable – as they do all conflict – like the world-wide conflict with militant Islam which they refuse to acknowledge as a war even though militant Islam has formally declared war on the U.S.

Their solution, predictably, is to “abandon the field” and legalize all illicit drugs. Their argument is that “…taking the profit out of the drug-trade would end drug-abuse.” I guess they haven’t traveled to Colorado or Washington State recently – where the “legal” drug trade is not only flourishing – organized-crime and gangs are targeting it for their own crime wave! And all the while, drugs are destroying America’s families and America’s future generations.

I’m sure you’ve heard all of the arguments in favor of decriminalization but you have probably never heard a coherent discussion about how to win this war. The first concept to understand is that when one is in a war, one needs warriors – soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines – and one needs to understand that war and policing are entirely different things.

We’ve been pretending to fight this war with our local and national police. They are not trained, equipped or intended for war and the PLDC does not want to equip them for war. The federal government has been fighting this war with outmanned and outgunned quasi-military police agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, USMS, the Secret Service and the Border Patrol. It hasn’t worked because the opposing “army” of drug cartels, urban street gangs, jihadis, human traffickers, illegal immigrants, gun runners, and God knows who else, has an overwhelming advantage in numbers and firepower, both at the border and in-country.

This opposing “army” has, in fact, invaded the U.S. with millions of foot soldiers. They aren’t organized into a traditional army but they are an amalgamation of armed killers organized as small-units (homicide-bombers, fire-support teams, squads, platoons, companies) of clandestine agents seeking to overwhelm the American society in order to turn a profit. They don’t seek to control territory for political purposes, they seek to control territory and the population for economic purposes. Nevertheless, the outcome for the “conquered population” is the same. Daily terror and the loss of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and domestic tranquility. Aren’t these the specific rights that our federal officials pledge under oath to protect – all enemies, foreign and domestic?

In fact, the War on Drugs, illegal immigration and urban gangs are all facets of the same problem – the invasion of America by millions of illegal and unauthorized foreign operators, primarily by way of our Southern border but, also by way of abuses of our legal immigration system – and their dispersal into the interior of the country where they establish their destructive operations. Once in the interior, of course, they become virtually invisible to law enforcement by terrorizing the local populace.

A major contributing factor is the parallel “invasion” of millions of economic “refugees” from the Middle-East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Mexico and Central America. These unfortunates, who make their way illegitimately into this country with the aid of the defective U.S. State Department processes and “foreign operators’ mentioned above and add cost, chaos and confusion to the illegal alien problem faced by law enforcement and other government social service agencies. Hiding among the economic refugees, the foot soldiers of illegal alien syndicates easily slip past the border and disappear into the immigrant population.

When analyzed in this manner and looked at in its totality, this “invasion” is an act of war by stateless actors for all intents and purposes. Being invaded is not a peaceful endeavor for the effected population. It creates hardship and chaos. There is no better way to describe the lives of too many American citizens.

Exactly like the stateless radical Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America and practice their trade of terror and brutality around the world as foreign enemies, these stateless invaders practice their trade of terror and brutality here in our home as domestic enemies. Both groups clearly fit the legal definition of “terrorist’.

We are also at war with radical Islam wherever it exists – as the 45 different acts of war on Americans, in America, clearly demonstrate. The problem is – Congress has never declared war on radical Islam. Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 23, 2001, among other things, authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists. 66 Fed. Reg. 49,079.

Among the provisions of this Order are: the authorization of  indefinite detentions of immigrants (suspension of habeas corpus – just like Lincoln); the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge (suspension of the 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure); the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order (suspension of due process); and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records (various privacy regulations) – excellent wartime provisions all. All that’s missing is an army to fight the enemy.

This has not led however, to the destruction of drug cartels, urban gangs or radical Islam. A declaration of war would compel our NATO allies to enter the fight. Their added capabilities would enable the destruction of these ubiquitous foes overseas by providing sufficient resources to help us find and destroy this enemy. Employment of State-militia forces at home would enable the identification and (hopefully) the disruption of cartel activity and terrorist activities in the homeland before they are unleashed upon the American people.

The wars on drugs and terror are NOT law and order issues – they are military issues and the maximum use of military force – in all of its many forms – is necessary to defeat the cartels, gangs and radical Islam at home and abroad. Next time: The War on Terror.

Militia in Action

Because of the sensationalism attached to popular press and Hollywood accounts of alleged “militias” – as groups of “crazies” and “right-wing gun nuts”, the general population may be wary of actually constituting State militias. In order to allay these fears and because State militias do not function as police forces, but as para-military forces, it is important to know that they shall be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the historic, mainly American, creation for the humane and formal conduct of military operations called the “law of war”.

Therefore, if a para-military force exists and is not under the authority of the governor of the State where it exists, nor under the operational control of an appointed or elected State officer – it is NOT a militia!

“The law of war is part of who we are. George Washington, as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, agreed with his British adversary that the Revolutionary War would be “carried on agreeable to the rules which humanity formed” and “to prevent or punish every breach of the rules of war within the sphere of our respective commands.”

During the Civil War, President Lincoln approved a set of “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States [mostly State militias] in the Field,” which inspired other countries to adopt similar codes for their armed forces, and which served as a template for later international codifications of the law of war.

After World War II, U.S. military lawyers, trying thousands of defendants before military commissions did, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, “stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law” in “one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.” Reflecting on this distinctive history, one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff observed that “[t]he laws of war have a peculiarly American cast.” And it is also true that the laws of war have shaped the U.S. Armed Forces as much as they have shaped any other armed force in the world.”

The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do. But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing. Nations have developed the law of war to be fundamentally consistent with the military doctrines that are the basis for effective combat operations. For example, the self-control needed to refrain from violations of the law of war under the stresses of combat is the same good order and discipline necessary to operate cohesively and victoriously in battle. Similarly, the law of war’s prohibitions on torture and unnecessary destruction are consistent with the practical insight that such actions ultimately frustrate, rather than accomplish, the mission.

The Law of War is the “Lex Specialis” Governing Armed Conflict. The maxim “lex specialis derogat legi generali” means that “[a]s a rule, the special rule overrides the general law.” The rule that is more specifically directed towards the action receives priority because it takes better account of the particular features of the context in which the law is to be applied, thus creating a more equitable result and better reflecting the intent of the authorities that have made the law. The law of war has been developed with special consideration of the circumstances of military style activities and the challenges inherent in its regulation by law. Thus, for example, the exigencies of armed conflict cannot justify violating the law of war.

On the opposite side of the ledger in America’s war against invading hordes of criminals functioning as quasi-military forces, the same allegiance to the law of war cannot be expected. That does not however, excuse any violation of the law of war by American militias.

With this as prologue, let us see how existing Constitutional provisions can return power to the People – power to exercise their God-given rights to life, liberty, truth, religious faith and the pursuit of their dreams, as they see fit, in an atmosphere of privacy, safety, security and domestic tranquility.

Average militia units of up to 1,000 members (the average county has about 100,000 residents with the smallest having less than 100 and the largest having 10 million) can be (some already have been) organized at the local level under the authority of the Governor and the auspices of the (elected) county sheriff – in military parlance, “wearing two hats” – one civilian (sheriff), one military (commander of militia).

There are also literally thousands of former soldiers, sailors and airmen all over this country – graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and Marines, graduates of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, with real-world experience as officers leading men in ground combat, who would jump at the chance to participate in the organization and operation of their local State militias. Indeed, there are many, many county sheriffs and deputy sheriffs with the same experience.

There are also millions of experienced hunters (there are 22 million former service-members alone) whose sensibility and mastery of firearms suitable for military use makes them eminently qualified to function as members of a local militia. They are your law-abiding fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, cousins, uncles and aunts, your neighbors and co-workers, your classmates and buddies who own and operate the estimated more than half-billion firearms in the United States that have never been used in the commission of a crime.

Retired flag officers could easily function as the operational commander, or Commandant of the State militia – reporting directly to the Governor, and retired field-grade officers could easily function as local leaders of county militia units – under the civilian control of the elected sheriff – whether it be as small as a company (about 100 militia members) or a division (about 10,000 members).

Sheriffs take an oath of office, swearing to protect the populace from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Sheriffs are uniquely positioned to deal with “domestic enemies”; whether they be heavily armed street gangs, ethnic organizations like Chinese triads and Latino cartels supporting illegal immigrant drug or human traffickers or subversive groups of officials like PLDC acolytes in positions to influence what the People – particularly, the voting public – know about their governments and the issues of the day. (Much more about “subversion” and “subversives” in the following section.)

Not being appointed to office by politicians, sheriffs don’t belong to the political hierarchy at the State or federal level. They are closely aligned with the common man because they stand for the locally elected office of county sheriff – as did their forefathers in the Continental Militias that won us our freedom in the Revolutionary War.

In addition to having volunteer, military-style militia units at their disposal, county sheriffs would be able to recruit local informants among the working public in their jurisdictions – at the local newspapers, television and radio stations, government offices (including police departments and State bureaus of investigation) and in local, politically active, organizations. Such informants can feed information about organized crime or subversive activity to the militias’ intelligence division – organized and operated by former military intelligence specialists – who could then alert the sheriffs to any untoward activity – either past, current or planned.

Of course, this role (uncovering and making practical use of, untoward activity by public officials and criminals) used to be in the hands of a free press but, today’s compromised “celebrity press” no longer functions as the eyes and ears of the People, so some other entity MUST take up the gauntlet to hold America’s institutions accountable to the People who authorized them through the Constitution and pay for them. The county sheriff, with feet in both the law enforcement and historical militia arenas, is singularly capable of bringing illegal and illicit activity to light through a new kind of intelligence collection model – crowd-sourced intelligence – using that marvel of modern technology, the cell phone and social media apps. Just imagine that power in the hands of the People, not used for self-promotion or public shaming but, for the pursuit of domestic tranquility — and it does not violate any laws.

Just imagine how different such illicit actors would conduct themselves if they knew that they may be watched as they plan or execute activities that are threatening to domestic tranquility or to Constitutional order. They would certainly think twice about illegal or subversive activity that currently goes undetected by law enforcement either because of funding or politics. In fact, some of the funding constraints are already political calculations by subversive politicians.

The governors of the several States must establish standing State militia, in accordance with the guidance provided in the Constitution, under the control of the duly elected county (parish, borough) sheriffs and the authority of the governors of their respective States. Sheriffs should coordinate militia operations and share intelligence with sheriffs of adjacent and other jurisdictions to bring necessary and sufficient assets to bear in order to preserve, protect and defend the safety, security and domestic tranquility of the People. The governors of the several States should coordinate with the governors of adjacent and other States for the same purpose, especially around large, urban areas where the highest concentration of subversive and domestic enemies exists.

“Co-ordination among local units should be done using correspondence committees, which is the traditional method dating to colonial times. These committees should not attempt to act as regional, state, or national organizations, but only to facilitate communications among local units, the sharing of literature and intelligence, and the building of a consensus for action. The beauty of this response to the abrogation of the safety and security responsibility that the federal government owes every citizen (and to some extent State and local governments – think “sanctuary cities”) and rather than have the PLDC denigrate and debase its history, it honors the long and proud tradition of the citizen soldier, the “minute-man”, the State militia.

There are more than 3,100 counties in the United States. Every one of the sheriffs of these counties must have a State-militia intelligence unit – utilizing the thousands of former military intelligence specialists and analysts who already populate every county in America. Most, if not all, would jump at the chance to serve at-home to protect their families and communities from domestic enemies and foreign-inspired terrorists like those who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 and in Orlando in 2016. These units would pass their intelligence up the chain-of-command to the State National Guard that the governors of the several States have modernized with their own domestic-intelligence capability. Does this sound like Orwell’s 1984? In actuality, it will prevent a “1984”!

Since they first began to aggregate power to themselves through subterfuge, the Political Establishment (specifically, the PLDC) has discouraged the formation of armed groups, including Constitutional militias. They don’t want the “unorganized” militia to become organized and they certainly don’t want them armed – hence the continuous attacks on 2nd Amendment rights at the least provocation. That will not change. Besides legal and illegal harassment, State-militia leaders must prepare participants to deal with attempts to infiltrate State-militia units. This can take three main forms (much like PLDC operators function in the political sphere today):

·         Moles. Agents who pretend to be trustworthy but who are mainly focused on obtaining information about militia members and their activities.

·         Provocateurs. Agents who pretend to be responsible members, then, when least expected, do something which seeks to discredit the militia and perhaps provoke official action against it.

·         Dissipaters. Agents who pretend commitment until they can assume positions of influence within the group, then use it to divert the group into ineffective or unproductive activities, such as endless debate, socializing, and divisive disputes, or to reduce morale and resolve.

The best protection against infiltration is to teach members to be vigilant about it and to have a large number of small units and many leaders, none of whom is critical. There should be little or no leadership on the State or national level, other than governors, National Guard commanders, county sheriffs and a network of correspondence committees that facilitate communications, intelligence and coordination.

It is also important to try to establish good relations with local and State officials, to the extent possible. Work to help them solve the problems of the community, and encourage them to ask the militia to assist them. Resistance from such officials, as dissipaters, may indicate prima facie evidence of subversive activity and should be countered by getting them removed from office and getting better ones elected or appointed.”

One of the most important subjects for action by local militia units is the pursuit of official corruption – especially in light of any new “subversion” laws. It will do little good to try to elect honest, moral and ethical officials if elections are actually illegitimate because of deceit, deception and dis-information on the part of the PLDC.

This, of course, would be followed by the corruption of the democratic process by elected officials doing the business of progressive/liberal political, and monied, interests who have effectively “bought” the office holders through contributions of “cash and kind” – and who control the strings of an imperious government – and the lives of its citizens – through threats of sanction.

If governments are illegitimate, the militia may become the only way for citizens to secure their rights. If such fraud and corruption is found, it will also help to build public support for further militia action and for greater participation.

“Another key subject is to inform citizens of their right and duty, when serving as jurors in cases in which the government is a party, to judge the law and not just the facts in the case. No matter how despicable the defendant in a criminal case or how heinous the offense, the jury must find the defendant not guilty if the law under which he is charged is unconstitutional or misapplied. After all, the objective of the exercise is the administration of justice – not bureaucracy. An untold number of these cases are on record – many incidentally, discovered by progressive criminal rights activist groups such as the Innocence Project and the Justice Policy Institute.”

A law is unconstitutional if it violates a Constitutional right, is not based on a power delegated to government, or is so vague that honest people may disagree on how to obey or enforce it.  It is misapplied if it is applied to acts outside its proper jurisdiction, such as a federal criminal law applied to acts committed under State jurisdiction, or to acts not intended to be included by the lawmakers.

You will hear this Constitutional right referred to as “jury nullification” and is always heartily condemned by the PLDC because it places power in the hands of the People instead of the Establishment. Judges will counsel juries against it, assuming unto themselves a cloak of infallibility about Constitutional law. One only needs to look at the number of cases overturned on appeal to recognize the fallacy of that argument – in addition to some outrageous Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

It is interesting to note that the area of the country where judicial error is highest is also the most progressive/liberal area of the country – the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which governs the West Coast – California, Oregon and Washington State. It is overturned by the Supreme Court almost half the time!

One of the most important subjects for militia activity will be to establish a notification system for warning of abuses of citizens by organs of the government, and mobilizing to defend them. Understand that if the government itself is abusing citizens, there is virtually no chance that the same government will “police” itself, admit error, sanction those responsible or take the appropriate steps to ensure that there is no recurrence of the abuse. Governments are not equipped to do those things and, in the absence of a free (uncorrupted) press, it is ‘nigh on impossible.

Concurrent with this issue is the reality that the press and media in America have become irretrievably biased against any individual or group that disagrees with the PLDC position on any and all topics in the public square. The impact of this corruption is that PLDC officials will never be held accountable to the People through control of the public debate by the fraudulent press/media.

The only way to correct this corruption of the intent of the 1st Amendment – the most important addition to the Constitution demanded by the People – is to implement the concept of subversion into the Constitution itself through the amendment process contained in the Constitutional concept of a Convention of the States. Simply stated; subversion is the denial of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the People about any and all matters of political import in the public square.

When journalists, academics, entertainers, politicians, jurists, monied interests or any other individuals with access to the People at large, individually or in concert with others, seeks to deny the truth about public or political matters to the People in order to further a personal or political aim, they are committing acts of subversion because they are deliberately and adversely affecting the inalienable right of every citizen to cast an informed vote or to exercise a myriad of acts of citizenry.

Such subversives have truly committed crimes against the state — and the People — that go to the heart of the democratic process and therefore must be removed from access to the public square immediately and until their cases are adjudicated so that their transgressions can no longer endanger our very democracy by muddying the waters of their own transgressions.

It must be emphasized that it is not enough for citizens to defend their rights in isolation. The federal government can and will attempt to professionally and financially crush any individual citizen it wishes. Believe me – I have lived it first-hand – twice.

The Internet has changed the game when it comes to the use of power in all of its forms. We have all seen its power to influence governments around the world.

Remember Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 when one lone protester held off a column of tanks on a live video feed.

Much of the video on today’s newscasts are already recorded by private citizens and uploaded to the internet where national and world news services can replay it to their audiences – with their editing and their commentary. This is called crowd-sourcing.

Such a means would allow militia intelligence units to exploit the entire local population to gather intelligence on suspected domestic enemies by encouraging private citizens to upload video, audio and their own personal observations – that they believe to be problematic – to an encrypted militia intelligence “app” for auto-compilation, analysis and/or submission into a local “suspected domestic enemy” database.

The PLDC would call that a “Big Brother” system like the one created by George Orwell in his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. But, they would be wrong!

This is a proposed system of, by and for the People – for them to use to protect themselves from government activism or government negligence – not a system operated by the several governments for their own coercive purposes.

Only if citizens band together can their rights really be protected. The courts are full of individual defendants who face the weight of the entire federal establishment alone – with predictable results. Here’s an example.

“In 2014, the federal government seized $115,000 in cash and merchandise from the Bednars – a couple who have run a collectible coin and antique business in Raleigh, NC for more than 30 years – using as an excuse that the Bednars had (lawfully) deposited sums of cash into their bank account that approached the $10,000 reporting threshold that the feds use to identify drug traffickers. The Secret Service [Don’t you just love that name in a democracy? It’s another police force. I’m glad they don’t use its initials – SS – like the FBI or DEA!] trashed their home and business in a search for evidence, since they had no evidence before their operation started.

No evidence of a crime was ever found and the case was soon dropped but the feds were reluctant to return the Bednar’s property under the legal (or illegal) concept of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Originally, the feds offered to return only half of the assets seized! [What?] They then offered to return everything except $10,000! [What, again?] The Bednars are now out of business and are living off of their retirement savings. Their business reputation is gone. A year later the feds still (unlawfully) had their $115,000.”

How can this simple family fight the federal government that does not even bother to check the simplest facts or ask the most basic questions before they destroy a lifetime of work? Do you think anyone will ever be held accountable for this horrific abuse of federal police power? I don’t. What would have happened if their local unit of the North Carolina State Militia was available to get the fed’s attention by invoking State sovereignty – in the State’s responsibility to prevent abuses of power by the federal government – behind several thousand armed State militia members? The feds would have acted much differently.

“Education in constitutional law must also be a priority. Every militia member and as many citizens as possible must be exposed to education in Constitutional history so that they can interpret – or at least legitimately question – the constitutionality of laws and official acts for themselves, and be taught that doing so is the responsibility of each individual citizen and that, as an inalienable right, it cannot be taken away but it also cannot be delegated to others, such as judges, lawyers, superiors or elected officials.

If a citizen contends that a statute has been misapplied to them or is Constitutionally suspect – the first order of business must be to answer that question through due process and at no cost to the citizen. Today, it is the last – after conviction, financial ruin, public humiliation and worse — a truly perverse and tyrannical system. As a result, America’s citizens live in fear of their own government – their creation now morphed into a bureaucratic Frankenstein monster. Incidentally, due process in this area is not the province of the grand jury system.

Special attention needs to be given to educating lawyers, judges, officials, and college and high school students. History teachers and lawyers in the State-militias can provide these educational opportunities at State community colleges – which are under the jurisdiction of the governors. Governors can mandate this training under the State licensing authority. Militia members need to make sure that every public library contains suitable books and magazines that provide education on these subjects.”

The PLDC wants us to believe that the People are not smart enough to understand constitutional issues. They need to be reminded that it was the People who ratified the Constitution in the first place – and most didn’t even have the benefit of formal schooling.

This is the Lesson of Nuremberg – the trial of Nazi officials by the Allied Powers after World War II at which their defense was that they were just following orders from their superiors (to murder over 6 million Jews, among other things). They never questioned whether those orders were lawful. Their ignorance and/or cowardice was fatal to an entire civilization.” Next: State militias v. urban gangs.