Additional Pages

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Christian Mercenary

Those interested in a different conversation, one centered around faith and liberty can join me at the new blog Christian Mercenary. This blog will remain active for the excellent reading in the sidebar.

Monday, April 22, 2013

A System Adrift

The one thing more humiliating than being caught by the authorities in an attempt to fight back against a corrupt and illegal system of government is to be caught not making the attempt.

There is no doubt in my mind that every single law restricting ownership of firearms is an illegal law. I can argue that case by case if needed, with a few moments to check my notes. A great resource, however, can be found here. It is an exhaustive look at the Second Amendment as related to U.S. v Miller. Most notable are the arguments made in favor of the United States. The logic and references made there are convoluted and entirely void of references to the founders who made their sentiments known time and time again on where the right rested. It rests with the individual.

Oddly, an argument made during the whole process of Miller making its way up to the Supreme Court was the argument no liberal would want to be made in defense of their attacks on the Second Amendment. The government argued that the only legitimate use of weapons in the hands of the people is to throw off oppression and tyranny of authorities. Referenced as substantiating the government's point was Aymette v. State, supra, it was said (p. 158):

As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and assassin. These weapons would be useless in war.
This was the government's argument not the argument of the defendants. By then Miller was dead and Layton chose a deal for probation. They did not even have counsel to argue for them before the Supreme Court.

It is simple, the Supreme Court wanted to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and used every means possible to interpret the Constitution in a way that would allow them to do so, even calling back on the very British government's laws that led to the Revolutionary War.

This is why one cannot look to the Supreme Court, or any court to determine what rights a person has. No matter how clearly it is said, how eloquently it is put, they will find what they want to find and discard what does not serve their purpose of the day.

The only true arbiter of one's rights is oneself. Though many feel the sting of oppression, they will not act. Only those who understand that rights are inherent to freedom and paid for in blood will ever be willing to shed blood for them. It is not a group or an organization that is capable of fighting for your rights, it is yourself, or no one.

If one needs proof from a court that one has a right, they have already forfeited it. For too long the people of this nation have allowed the courts to determine for them what they are allowed to do, when the opposite should be true. If the Constitution were functioning properly, with honorable and obedient servants of the people behind it, the Supreme Court would rule over and over on behalf of the individual rights of the people. As it is always the nature of government to abuse these rights, the cases should only arise from the abuse and the government should be more specifically restricted from abusing them. Since this is not the case, we can assume that the Constitution is not functioning properly to secure the rights of the people and that the servants of the people are neither honorable, nor obedient.

Over the weekend the III% held a Congress. Hardly any of the III blog sites I go to, or Second Amendment forums mentioned it at all. The III Congress met and discussed action. I support them. They are in need of delegates from as many states as they can get. I hope that it will grow and become a powerful voice in restoring the Constitution. But, I did not attend.

I have come to the understanding, finally, that this is personal. I have rights that are not being honored by the governments created to secure them. It is my obligation to demand a redress of my grievances and since the government will not respond, except to punish my temerity, I am forced to act in a way that shall be most likely to effect my liberty and my security.

I can cite case after case if I choose, point out flaw after flaw in the logic used to arrive at whatever social engineering ruling might best please five out of nine justices, but it would not make a difference. I no longer look to anyone to prove to the "authorities" that I have rights. No one is listening. The warnings have all been made time and time again by citizens wronged by the injustice of a system adrift on shifting sands.

It is what it is and one person can make a difference.

Friday, April 19, 2013

The Dorner Principle for American Jihadists

I had been trying to figure out what it was about the reaction of the "authorities" in Boston that bothered me so much until I read Karl Denniger's piece via WRSA.

Read it, then let me add this:

When I watched the local and federal reaction to a couple of Jihadists killing and wounding fewer people than are gunned down an average night in Chicago, I grew more and more upset without really knowing why. I read the Denniger piece while visiting WRSA and knew what it was. We look like idiots prime for more of the same.

When the Jihadists realize how little effort they have to put into stopping all commerce in a city the size of Boston, around 7 million, they will do everything they can to replicate the actions and reactions as many times as they can.

Obama's fawning media added to the frustration. The story was that Obama heard of the second suspect being captured while watching television. We are supposed to get an image of cool-headed Obama enjoying a cold one while watching Dancing With The Stars (no, I don't have single clue when that show might actually be on air) and like every other person in America getting the news on a news break. That is insulting. It is propaganda. It doesn't take much imagination to think of how that news would have gone down if it was Bush getting the news on a news break. It would go something like this:

"This just shows a president out of touch with the average American." "It was as if this were happening in a different country rather than his own nation." "Detached." "Uncaring, out of touch."

But, with Obama, the media frames it as in touch with America, just a dad being a dad until the urgency of the moment thrusts him into the limelight to quell any fears and calm the nation. Sickening.

Worse, however, was the way in which the feds and local cops entered almost every home searching for one guy. Also, with all the show that was put on: the flashing lights; the SWAT vans; the people escorted from their homes...they were looking for one guy and they never did find him. No, some neighbor looked in his boat to find a bloody suspect hiding in there, probably without any ammunition (yes, I know they said they exchanged fire, I doubt it) dying from his wounds of twelve or so hours earlier, and he calls the cops.

My God.

What a bunch of Keystone Kops. How many violations of rights did they commit in the bumbling search for one guy? ONE GUY.

I heard earlier in the day that they were looking for a dangerous suspect, one who had shown that he had no regard for human life, was armed and dangerous. He was capable and willing to take human life and I wondered who they were talking about, the suspect or those tracking him down. Is there a difference?

If this is how we react to terrorism, to shut down an entire city, trap people in their homes unarmed while these buffoons wander around town, kicking in doors, threatening citizens with their military-style tactics, unable to find the perpetrator of a bombing, a robbery, a carjacking and a high-speed chase, why shouldn't we all be armed? Who better than us to defend ourselves and our homes?

They found him in a boat, shot the boat all to hell and apparently didn't hit the bleeding suspect because he was taken into custody alive.

What it tells the world of Jihadists and anyone else taking notes that America is ripe for terrorism, that terrorist tactics work quite well. That just getting a few guys dedicated to ANY cause is enough to throw the whole nation into hysterics.

With any real organization capable of hiding this guy out for a week they would have been able to kill commerce along the entire Eastern Seaboard for as long as they could keep him under wraps.

Perhaps these guys learned the lesson of Christopher Dorner and understood what they could accomplish from that fiasco.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Senate Bill 716

Our masters don't like to be held accountable, or to disclose their financial information. Wonder why?
From NC Renegade:

http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/a-representative-republic-no-more/

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Acts of Rebellion

I am not afraid to say that we are in an all out battle for the soul of the nation. It is a counter-revolution. No one in the sphere of the Patriot/Liberty Community is interested in overthrowing the American government, but rather re-establishing the documents of its founding. It is a re-assertment of the Constitution that we seek.

In order to brand any of us as revolutionaries, they must first admit that they have abandoned the Constitution. To do that would be to de-legitimize their own offices. They can't do it.

So, they try to squeak out a little latitude by calling us domestic insurgents, or domestic terrorists without defining what is that we are against, which would be tyranny. Are they in favor of it? We are against oppression. Are they in favor of it?

We are for the Constitution and for respecting the rights recognized by it. We can't be against the government if we are in favor of its charter. We can be against the government where it has distanced itself from its charter.

What ground have they chosen by making us their enemy? They have chosen the ground of a government estranged from its charter; disrespecting of the rights of the citizenry. They have chosen the ground of the Temple, Texas police department willing to arrest a veteran at the whim of mob rule.

The battle lines are drawn. We have to encourage them to correct their ways; to honor the Constitution. Their distance from legal action has caused the backlash they detest. They don't want to hear from the Tea Party, the Patriot/Liberty Movement or the militias, because we remind them that they are acting illegally; that their actions are illegitimate.

All of this has been written before, but today it is with a different heart.

Their revolution has taken place over the past one hundred and fifty years. Slowly they have crept in inch by coercive inch: taking a little bit of liberty here, adding a little bit of socialism there. Insinuating the state into our lives a morsel at a time. "It is for the best" they say as they do a little more evil.

The true nature of the republican state is to find a balance of liberty that provides the greatest liberty to all. This simple principle has been abused to mean all liberty is at the mercy of the comfort of the most. Those are two completely different principles.

Once the concept of "societal good" is enforced by the power of the state, there is no individual liberty that can tip that scale. It is only by holding individual liberty above the "societal good" that republicanism can exist.

We see this clearly in the Second Amendment issues. My right to protect myself with firearms is above anyone else's right to feel safe. Some people might not feel safe if they see me walking down the street with my pistol on my hip, but they are not in danger. I am not responsible for their mental state. If I wave that weapon around and threaten them with it, I have stepped over the line marking my right to protection and their right to free movement. I have hindered their right and my right to a weapon might be restricted by my actions, but not by their pathological fear of a weapon.

My cause is to the recognition of my rights as given to me by God and affirmed in the Constitution.

I have the right to free speech. I have the right to firearms. I have the right to due process of law. I have the right to religious expression. I have the right to my papers and effects. Without warrant or probable cause of a crime being committed or about to be committed, the government has no right to infringe these rights.

I also have the right to every other thing that does not infringe another person's freedom or exercise of their rights.

As such, I am within the Constitutional framework this nation was founded on and legally bound to protect.

If the government exceeds its authority and seeks to limit any or all of these rights, I have the legal right to seek redress and force it, one way or the other, to obey the Constitution and limit itself to the legal authority that it was issued under the Constitution. Where the government has become an entity of itself, drawing its authority from its own force of arms, it is a rogue government and deserving of disobedience and aggression.

It is not the United States of America as formed and given authority under the Constitution that has become hostile toward my liberty, but the government acting illegally and outside its charter abusing its citizens and authority that has caused my acts of rebellion.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Cold War Has Gone Hot

As most of you know, I have backed off from blogging as it is basically a tool for the establishment. My words are being collected and used as evidence as we speak. So, why don't I just shut up? Because that is what they want me to do.

I am engaged in this fight. This is a war. Things are beyond discussion.

The Department of Homeland Security (yes, I know they search for that in every blog) or DHS (another Internet keyword they search) is an abomination. It is the child of George W Bush, the same person who decided that the only way to save the free market was to violate it, the one who decided that he would save the auto industry by bailing it out with our money, without asking us. It was as Barack Obama wished.

Get it? They are against you. They are not against your neighbors, or your friends, or your relatives. It is personal.

The DHS has no authority whatsoever. It is unConstitutional in every aspect. It interferes with proper elected officials and comes into cities and towns, but it has no jurisidiction except that we allow it to happen. It is a fait acompli because we allowed it. Now it is the primary enemy to liberty.

If you want to know the target of your oppression, the flag-bearer of your lost liberty, it is with the DHS. From the TSA to the tracking of individuals to drones, you will find the DHS. They are, in effect, the Gestapo. If you want to see German totalitarian tactics you need to look no further.

Yes, I write this knowing the consequences.

The fact that you fear the government is in itself a reason to fight against its abuses and bring it back under Constitutional control.

Where was the DHS at the Boston Marathon bombing? Where have they been when it comes to protecting American lives? Nowhere. Why? Because with their billion rounds of Geneva Convention banned hollow point bullets, they are not targeting terrorists, but American citizens, domestic indigenous peoples, US. They do not have to comply with the Geneva Convention if they use the ammunition on us. Get it?

I am engaged, are you?

Thursday, April 11, 2013

The Counter Revolution

There is nothing left to wait for. The Feds have made their moves already and where federal legislation may not work, they have gone into the states, Missouri for example. They are coming every day in every state in different ways.

The revolution from individual freedom and personal responsibility has taken place. The ideals of liberty are gone. The concept of collectivism has permeated everything that was America and destroyed it.

The wiser of us will caution you against action toward the despostic forces of gun legislation, but keep in mind, the Second Amendment is not all that they are violating. Every single right is under siege. The only rights left are those we are willing to die to protect.

I am not one of the wise.

Therefore, I have given up on any sort of organized action. The community is targeted by infiltrators or should I say infiltraitors? We are being watched; our blogs monitored. In some cases individuals are under surveillance.

In every case it is possible that if we seek to acquire weapons with which to fight for our rights, our contacts will likely be federal government agents or conspirators with the federal government.

The tactics are simple: intrude on an individual, acquire evidence (real or fabricated) with which to leverage compliance and information against the rest. Set up a scenario where others will come under the same scrutiny and wait for one of them to be ready to act and then bust the lot of them with conspiracy to overthrow the government.

They do not need facts, they do not need evidence, they do not need to comply with the Constitution. All they need to do is bust a few of us and incriminate the rest.

Therefore, I have decided that the only action likely to achieve the end is personal and individual action, in conjunction with no one else, in contact with no one else. It is not through purchasing weapons of resistance, but by using the weapons they supply. It is by exploiting existing sources, not introducing sources.

The time to fight back is now. If you are dedicated to the cause of liberty, or just against despotism and oppression this is your fight and it must begin.

If you are not in the planning stage, you should be. If you are not in the implementation stage, you should be getting close.

This is the counter-revolution and you should be part of it.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

That Magical Moment

It is very simple: the resistance will not be organized. There is no way to get people together on anything at this stage and there aren't many more stages left.

Obama is "constrained" by the Constitution. He considers that wrong, but we know that constraining people like him is the whole purpose of the Constitution. Of course he feels constrained by it, he is supposed to and so is everyone else in a position of immense power. He is constrained by our rights and so has done everything he can to obliterate them.

We have sat around and moaned about it, planned, prepared and little else. I don't know about anyone else. All I know is that if something is going to get done, it will have to be done alone. One person doing a remarkable thing is how it must happen.

The rights they are bargaining with are mine and mine alone. If someone else's rights are violated, it doesn't bother me that much. Yet, when I fight for mine, I fight for everyone's.

This is not the last of it, it will only get worse and worse. They will take more and more individual rights until the only rights left will be those of the state.

That is where it stands right now. It will take some magical moment to the get the great wave of public sentiment on the side of individual rights again. I don't know what produces that magical moment. If I did, I would do it.

It is time to fight back. I am not a leader or I would lead others. All I have ever been able to do is lead myself and that is exactly what I am doing now.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

The Resistance?

Let me ask the readers of this blog: why is it that every time some patriot is gunned down by the police there is the question of what the patriot did to deserve it? And if that question is asked, why then, when this happens, when prosecutors and deputies are gunned down no one asks what they did to deserve it?

What is the penalty for enforcement of illegal laws? What is the penalty for committing treason? What is the penalty for the destruction of a once free people?

I am not suggesting that these people were gunned down by someone upset by their actions, but that the actions of every policeman, every judge, every district attorney when enforcing illegal laws, be they drug laws, gun laws, violating the Fourth Amendment to search homes and cars illegally, taking "evidence" and destroying property in the search deserves some penalty. Without penalty, then what is to stop them from further abusing the people?

Being a functionary in a corrupt system, willing to violate their oaths to defend the Constitution, is no different from being a conspirator to a crime.

These are harsh words, I know. A good number of police officers both current and former read this blog and I know they don't like this equation with common criminals because they are good people. But, it is starting to get serious out there and I don't see police in general supporting the Constitution. They might support the Second Amendment with gusto, but not so the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

The Constitution is not a buffet.

Of the few major gun arrests featured on this blog, two of them involved the police violating the Fourth Amendment to gather their evidence. One of them included an officer lying to the suspect. I have never been able to respect those in law enforcement who feel that it is okay to lie to a suspect to gain some confession or entrap them into a conviction. If it is illegal to lie to a police officer to avoid prosecution, it should be illegal to lie to a suspect to further a prosecution.

Double standards.

When any government official, cop, D.A., judge enforces laws that are clearly unconstitutional, even if not declared unconstitutional by some judge in Washington D.C., they are in violation of their oath and cease to deserve our respect.

Has the resistance begun? I don't know, but this is how it will look when we, as a people, finally get tired of the double standard and start enforcing the Constitution ourselves.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Iraq War Vet Arrested By Manipulative Liar

I was done with this blog. I had compiled all of the posts in one place. I had decided that I would offer a book of the compilation to those interested and would pack it away.

I have intellectually moved on. Whatever comment I could make on the current political situation of our nation has been made time and time again. Repeating myself would not make the bad guys stop or make the good guys move, so I decided to just stop talking and start moving myself.

Then, in the eleventh hour a message come over the transom (for those old enough to know what a transom is). It is another story of a veteran targeted by the system as was Nathan Haddad. This time, however, it is the NY SAFE Act that has been violated. This is a test case. Benjamin Wassell is the first to be charged under the NY SAFE Act.

I will contribute as before with Keith Pantaleon and with Nathan Haddad. I hope that you will do the same. None of us have any money, I know that. If we did, I would have used it to do much more than I have to date. I am constrained by life choices. I have taken some chances and incurred debts that have to be repaid. But, you know, there is always an extra hundred dollars somewhere that I can rob from collectivists to pay for special causes.

The government is apparently pushing hard on those closest to our hearts to see what we are made of. If we will abandon those servicemen, how will we ever stand up for each other? They want to test the most popular cases. If you understand Barack Obama and his ilk, you understand that they go for the strongest to discourage the rest of us. If they can put Nathan Haddad, a decorated solider, in prison doesn't that send a message to all of us who do not have such a compelling story?

So, now they have targeted Benjamin Wassell. Injured in the Iraq War: OIF. From independent research, Wassell was arrested for selling an AR-15 and an AR-10 to an undercover police officer who lied to him about what he wanted the weapons for and who he was. He did not sell the weapons to someone who was a felon, he sold them to someone who lied about being a felon. He did not sell the weapons to a drug dealer as the Department of Justice did during the Fast and Furious/Gunwalker Scandal, for which no one has gone to prison. He did not sell them to someone who would use them to commit criminal acts approved of by this sham of a government as gun stores do every day when selling to police officers. Let me follow one cop and I will detail the several felonies they commit as routine duty.

I will contribute $100 to Benjamin Wassell's defense. I will do it, because we cannot support these men enough to compensate for the work they have done in defense of this nation, but I would make one plea to those currently serving in the military: this is the future of the nation if you side with the government instead of the people. One day it will be you.

It is time to choose sides. With us or against us. With your government bosses, or with the people who deserve your loyalty. The people will never forget the servicemen who place themselves between the despots of other nations, but the oath comes with a greater obligation than just that. "All enemies, foreign and domestic." Why do you think they chose those words? Why not just foreign enemies? It was because they knew there would be some domestic enemies that would have to be dealt with.

Benjamin Wassell is one reason I believe any restriction on gun purchases is a violation of the Constitution. If one recalls the time accurately, it was a time of duels, of men acting in defense of themselves and their property and sometimes that went beyond the strictly legal constraints, but each man knew of what the other encountered and was not held to a strict reading of the law, but rather the natural law, i.e. the law of common sense.

Regardless, all we have for information is that of the police officer who charged Wassell and to be honest, I think he is a liar as are most when they write reports.