Why “Gun Control” is all smoke and mirrors. (And most other federal laws too…)


You know, I should know better than to get my guts in a knot when it comes to anything the “Feds” are proposing. It’s all a show and I’ll let you in on a secret – politicians know it’s a show but they play the game anyway.

Here’s the skinny. First off, the Federal government wears two Constitutional “hats” when it comes to creating legislation. The first is controlled by Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1 through 16. These clauses define very clearly the areas where the government can create laws that affect the States of the Union directly. These areas include taxation (and that is clearly defined…), the coining of money and treason to name a few.

The second “hat” is controlled by Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17. It says that the government can make whatever law and rules it deems necessary to administer the District, the territories and possessions controlled by the government. They have “exclusive” legislative jurisdiction over these areas and no real limits are defined by the Constitution.

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

We’ll call these two distinct areas of influence Federal, to represent the first situation and National, to represent the second.

Next, we need to know that the Supreme Court uses a series of rules, called canons, to evaluate the laws created by the government. One of these states: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Roughly translated, this phrase means that whatever is omitted is understood to be excluded. So when evaluating a law, the Court looks to the Preamble of the original Bill to see if the legislature specifically calls out that this legislation will apply to the Union States. If it doesn’t make that distinction, it is assumed that law makers explicitly excluded them and are using their National powers to legislate for the territories and possessions controlled by the US.

Then, if it still isn’t clear, the court will look to the text itself to determine intent. One of the things they look at is the defined terms in the law. When terms are specifically defined in the laws they mean only what the law makers want them to mean and nothing else. So for example, if law makers define fruit like this:

“The term “fruit” in this title, means any edible product that grows on trees and has a red skin and stem. This includes apples and cherries.”

Then further in the law define a tax on “fruit”:

“All growers of fruit in the United States are hereby subject to a $1.00 per pound tax.”

You grow bananas and peaches. Do you owe the tax? Not according to the definition of fruit in the law. But how may people will go and look up all the definitions in any new law?  Most people assume that the “term” fruit means exactly the same thing the common “word” fruit means. And therein lays the problem.

Now, on this item called “gun control”. Knowing the text of the 2nd Amendment, and using the Canons of Construction from above (and remembering that the terms include or includes are terms of LIMITED expansion – they are limited to things already in the same class of item enumerated in the definition…) let’s look at the Bill and walk through its construction.

If you look at the Preamble or title of the bill it does not distinctly call out that it applies to the States of the Union. Let’s assume that’s just a booboo on Harry Reid’s part. The second thing to do is look to the definitions in the legislation.

In the bill, I went to look for definitions of United States and State (as well as a few other things).  S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 contains a number of definitions. It defines “chief law enforcement officer”. It defines “transfer”. It defines “crime of violence” and it defines “purchase” as well as a bunch of other things.

But I wanted to see how it defines either the term “state” or “United States”. So, since this new bill is a change to 18 U.S.C (United States Code) Section 922, I went into the code to see what I could find. So, Section 922 is part of Chapter 44. I went into Chapter 44 and low and behold, Section 921 is titled Definitions. Now we’re cooking with gas.

In the very first paragraph (a) sub paragraph (2) buried in the definition of interstate or foreign commerce” I find the following:

“The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).”

But no definition of United States is listed.

But, look at the definition of the term “State” and we see something interesting. The class of items outlined in the definition is territories or possessions of the United States. And THESE fall under the National jurisdiction outlined in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution. This collaborates our finding that the States of the Union are not directly mentioned in the title / preamble of the bill.

But let’s dig deeper. Even in Section 921 – Definitions, there isn’t a distinct definition for the term “United States” so let’s drill up from Chapter 44 to Part 1 which contains Chapter 44. In Chapter 1, we see Section 5 – United States defined we’ll find the following:

“The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.

Bingo! This definition “The term “United States”, as used in this title (18 U.S.C.) in a territorial sense” gives you the answer. In this title, for these laws, the jurisdiction being used is the “National” jurisdictions as outlined in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution and DOES NOT generally apply the sovereign States of the Union.

Why do you think Ms. Pelosi makes people look like fools when they ask if something is Constitutional or not. It’s because she and every other politician in Washington D.C. knows that it’s Constitutional. These people are asking the wrong question. The question put to these hucksters SHOULD be, “Under which legislative jurisdiction are you proposing this bill, Federal or National?” If we can get people to start asking the right questions, we can start putting the Federal government and it’s over reaching quest for power BACK in Pandora’s Box.

Posted in Commentary, Gun Rights, Jurisdiction, Legislation, Observations

So, it’s not really Easter Day then Mr. Obama?


Lovely, President Obama on March 29, 2013 issues a new Presidential Proclamation. Is it about Easter and the millions of Christians that observe and honor their God and the traditions that founded this country? Did he recognize Easter at all for that matter? No, Obama issues a PRESIDENTIAL proclamation proclaiming March 31st… wait for it… Cesar Chavez Day! No I am NOT kidding. Cesar Chavez Day!

Talk about your political pandering… Cesar Chavez was an American of Mexican decent. He was know for his efforts in supporting the rights of migrant workers in California and Arizona. He was a first class union organizer and as such probably near and dear to Obama’s heart. but I think the ironic thing is that Cesar Chavez was ROMAN CATHOLIC!

So, in trying to pander to Latinos in this country by honoring Chavez, he insults the very man he’s trying to honor by ignoring Easter! The another irony… one of the most heavily Catholic populations in the WORLD is Latino! Even the new Pope is from Buenos Aires!

Is Obama trying to recruit Latinos to his cause or alienate them by insulting their beliefs?  And do his people even do any type of research before suggesting he make these kinds of announcements or proclamations? Somebody on Obama’s staff needs to be doing a bit more homework… Just sayin’

And where is the 4th estate on the actions of this “president”? The main stream media is silent on his actions because they support his agenda. It’s sad really, watching a once great institution kowtow and pander to a man because THEY too have an agenda and he plays perfectly into their plans. Can you imagine the backlash that would be unleashed against a Republican president that issued a Presidential proclamation honoring Chavez? The withering verbal fireballs from the left leaning media would be melting TV screens across the country.

Amazing, Obama issues a proclamation to honor a man and his legacy on the very day that the man who he’s trying to honor would be in church honoring his God. Chavez would probably have said, “Thanks but No Thanks Mr. President. It’s Easter. I’ll be in church today with my family. I’ll be free tomorrow.”

Read the proclamation yourself – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/29/presidential-proclamation-cesar-chavez-day

CESAR CHAVEZ DAY, 2013
- – – – – – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Every year, Americans all across our country pause on March 31 to remember a man who made justice his life’s calling. Growing up the son of migrant farm workers who lost everything in the Great Depression, Cesar Chavez knew hard work and hardship from an early age. He labored long hours for little pay, taking odd jobs to help his family get by and forgoing a formal education to follow the crop cycles. But where others might have given up or given in, Cesar Chavez never lost hope in the power of opportunity. He lived each day by a belief as old as America itself — the idea that with courage and determination, any of us can reach beyond our circumstances and leave our children something better.
More than anything, we remember Cesar Chavez for lending voice to the voiceless. When no one seemed to care about the invisible farm workers who picked our Nation’s food, beset by poverty and cheated by growers, a courageous man dedicated to dignity stood up and spoke out. Alongside Dolores Huerta and fellow organizers, he rallied a generation of workers around “La Causa,” marching and fasting and boycotting for fair pay and protections on the job. They fought through decades of setbacks and fierce resistance. But through every trial, Cesar Chavez refused to curb his ambitions or scale back his hope. Step by step, march by march, he helped lead a community of farm workers to make the change they sought.
Cesar Chavez’s legacy lives on at Nuestra Señora Reina de la Paz, his home and workplace, which I was proud to designate a National Monument last October. It also lives on in those who remember his central teaching: that when workers are treated fairly and humanely, our country grows more just, opportunity becomes more equal, and all of us do better. Because even with the strides we have made, we know there is more left to do when working men and women toil in poverty without adequate protections or simple respect. We know there is more to do when our broken immigration system forces workers into a shadow economy where companies can ignore labor laws and undermine businesses following the rules. Fixing those problems means securing what Cesar Chavez fought for at La Paz. It means taking on injustice, making sure hard work is rewarded, and bringing more Americans into a rising middle class.
In 1966, when Cesar Chavez was struggling to bring attention to his cause, he received a telegram from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “As brothers in the fight for equality, I extend the hand of fellowship and goodwill,” he wrote. “We are with you in spirit and in determination that our dreams for a better tomorrow will be realized.” It is a story that reminds us how here in America, we are bound together not by the colors of our skin or the languages we speak, but by the values we share and the brighter future we seek for our children. So today, as we honor a man who risked everything to stand up for what he believed in, let us reflect on our common cause and recommit to moving forward together — as one Nation and one people.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2013, as Cesar Chavez Day. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

Posted in Uncategorized

Hey, Georgia Gun Owners…


OK – lunch time question that should make Georgia gun owners go hummmm…

So today I’ve gone back and started to re-read the Georgia Constitution. In it, Art. I Sect. I Para VIII – Arms, right to keep and bear, it states the following:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”

So if this is the case, where does the General Assembly think they get the power to tell gun owners WHERE they can carry their guns? The key phrase is “power to proscribe the MANNER in which arms may be borne.” The last time I checked, the manner in which you do something is HOW you do it NOT WHERE…

If you look up the word “manner” on free dictionary, (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manner) it states the following:

man·ner (mnr)
n.
1. A way of doing something or the way in which a thing is done or happens. See Synonyms at method.
2. A way of acting; bearing or behavior.
3. manners
a. The socially correct way of acting; etiquette.
b. The prevailing customs, social conduct, and norms of a specific society, period, or group, especially as the subject of a literary work.
4. Practice, style, execution, or method in the arts: This fresco is typical of the painter’s early manner.
5.
a. Kind; sort: What manner of person is she?
b. Kinds; sorts: saw all manner of people at the mall.

Do you see anything about WHERE something can be done? I sure don’t. So with my simple understanding of the English language, ANY law they try to pass that regulates WHERE you can carry is a violation of the Georgia Constitution! The Constitution is written in plain English and is clear. The problem is that we the people are letting our politicians MAKE the issue difficult and confusing.

The Supreme Court has stated that any law that is unconstitutional is no law at all and can be ignored by Citizens. (I’ll need to find the exact case cite but it’s out there…) So if the legislature tries to pass a law that limits where we carry, or adds conditions to saying who can carry, we can do a number of things.

  1. Ignore the law and carry anyway.
  2. Ignore the law and carry anyway and then sue each and every representative and senator that voted “YES”, in their personal capacity, for passing a law OUTSIDE their Constitutional authority – (color of law). When someone does something under “color of law” they automatically give up any immunity they may have had in the course of performing their duties and can be sued as individuals.
  3. Do 1 or 2 above and then get the local Sheriff, (our Constitutionally elected Law enforcement officer) to arrest them and hold them for treason.

I know, it all seems just a bit extreme but somehow we the people need to start standing up and demanding that our elected “representatives” start following the Law and the Constitution! They just can’t make this stuff up as they go along anymore. If a few of these “representatives” get caught and prosecuted, the rest will hopefully get the message pretty quickly and will stop trying to legislate our rights away from us.

Would that stop private enterprises from saying whether people could carry into their businesses? No, they can set whatever rules they want for their private business or property. I believe though, once gun owners stopped going into these businesses and the criminals start, these private business owners would change their minds pretty quickly.

Would that stop the grubberment from setting rules for entering grubberment buildings? No, they could still do that too… Although I would question that situation as well – public buildings are just that – public. Paid for or rented with our tax dollars. Just sayin’…

And on THAT note – lets address the whole “carry permit” thing… Do YOU see anywhere in the text of Art. 1 Sect. 1 Para VIII any verbiage that allows the General Assembly to make you get a “permit” to exercise your right to keep and bear arms? I don’t.

Back to the dictionary. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/permit) Permit is defined as:

per·mit (pr-mt)
v. per·mit·ted, per·mit·ting, per·mits
v.tr.
1. To allow the doing of (something); consent to: permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.
2. To grant consent or leave to (someone); authorize: permitted him to explain.
3. To afford opportunity or possibility for: weather that permits sailing.
v.intr.
To afford opportunity; allow: if circumstances permit.
n. (pûrmt, pr-mt)
1. Permission, especially in written form.
2. A document or certificate giving permission to do something; a license or warrant: a building permit.

Forcing someone to get a permit – permission to do something that otherwise would be illegal – is converting their “right” into a privilege! God gave me my rights and only through due process of Law can any grubberment take them away. Converting a right into a privilege by legislative fiat is NOT due process. And neither is trying to change the meaning of the Constitution via legislative action. Changes like that must be voted on by the people or they are null and void.

In any situation that concerns our rights – we MUST be diligent and fight against any infringement by government. We must educate ourselves in the Law and then be willing to fight to keep our rights when they are attacked, even in small ways, by the people and processes that are suppose to be protecting those very same rights.

JMHO…

Posted in Commentary, Gun Rights, Jurisdiction, Legislation, Observations | Tagged , , , , , ,

My Response to John McCain


Senator McCain,

Crime is the subject heading I had to choose on your web site because it’s a crime the way you are schmoozing up to a president who is so clearly against the Constitutional principals real Americans hold dear. The “regular Joe” everywhere is aware of Obama’s plan and is awake to his danger. Why aren’t you? While Sen. Paul is spending time exposing Obama’s drone policy and forcing Holder to pen a letter reversing his earlier opinion, you are being wined and dined by the very man who thinks he can kill Americans on our own soil without regard to the Constitution or the Rule of Law! And then you have the audacity to try and call Sen. Paul on the carpet for doing what he promised his constituents he would do – uphold the Constitution! The very document Obama and his administration is trying their best to destroy.

Sen. McCain, I respect and appreciate your sacrifice for me and for our country during your military service. However, I would think that the very sacrifice you gave would enrage you and cause you to fight this… this… Socialist tooth and nail and to the bitter end. Instead you go to dinner with him and try to compromise away our American freedoms – freedoms given by God and guaranteed by our Constitution.

I know you are not my senator however, that will not deter me from also expressing my disgust at your actions and speech against other Republican Senators on Capitol Hill who are trying to expose Obama and his administration for what it has been from day one – a danger to our American way of life.

Senator Paul is also NOT my senator however, I support him and the others you so blindly criticize in your comments to the press. HE and those like him will be the ones who will ultimately help bring this country back on it’s original path – not you and your “old guard” who would “compromise” away our hard earned money and our God given freedoms. Someday “compromise” may again be a solution that we can use to address our differences – but not now. Now we need an unwavering stance against anything that encroaches on our freedoms until this country is moving back down the road on which it was founded and hold dear the principals of personal responsibility, LIMITED government and fiscal responsibility.

Common sense dictates that at some point you HAVE to STOP spending money you don’t have and start repaying the debt you’ve built up. You HAVE to stop punishing the LAW ABIDING citizen by taking away their rights and start punishing the criminal who is not following the existing law. You HAVE to STOP giving money (money we don’t have anyway) to people who hate us and want to kill us. And common sense dictates that you can’t “compromise” with a person or party that is not willing to concede to some basic realities – like, money does NOT grow on trees, crime is committed by criminals not victims and government is NOT the answer, it is the problem.

Sir, I thank you for your service to this country and the time you have given in public service. However, I believe the time has come for you retire and quit giving voice to the ideas that are turning this country in to a socialist state. You need to let the new guard take over and protect the ideals expressed by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. You have earned a rest and our Thanks. But now you need to move on and stop criticizing those who are NOT trying to give away our freedom and birthright via “compromise”.

Thanks You for your time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Someting Everyone Should Read…


This was a comment posted on visiontoamerica.com about an article outlining the decision by ONE judge that overthrows Gov. Scott Walker’s Law that pots limits on public sector unions and collective bargaining.

The important this in this “Public Notice” is that the authors’ have correctly outlined the jurisdiction of the United Stated and the crimes they can “prosecute” inside the States of the union.
Read through it. I kinda like the ideas presented but alas, I believe it will take more than a “Public Notice” to get the politicians and their ilk to actually “Protect and Defend” the Constitution of the united States.

JMHO -

PS – Thanks jbarrus – this was posted as was… or exactly as I found it without edit.

 

 

jbarrus • 2 days ago

 

When are the politicians going to wake up and realize that the People own the government and grant it whatever powers they feel necessary. One man, or woman, no matter what title they have, does not have the power, the right, or the ability to overrule the desires and wishes of the People.
Here in Utah, we are about to publish a PUBLIC NOTICE to put all of our politicians on notice that We, the People, have restored our Republic and will use our Superior Common Law Court to control, and fire, if necessary, any politician who defies us.
_______________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC NOTICE

WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens of the several State Republics, that constitute the united States of America, declare that this is our Country, it does not belong to the politicians, nor does it belong to the bankers, or the attorneys, nor does it belong to the judges. We, the Sovereign Citizens, are the real power, and the only valid authority, behind the various Governments We have established; and

WHEREAS, We also declare that the said Governments were created for the sole purpose of protecting and defending the unalienable rights that were given to us by our Father in Heaven and therefore have no power, authority, right, or duty to do anything beyond what powers We, the Sovereign Citizens have granted; and

WHEREAS, We have determined that many of our elected and appointed officials are not in compliance with their sacred oath of office, which they made, to defend our Constitution for the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We firmly declare that their Oath is a “binding contract” between them and us which they are duty bound to honor, and that by violating their Oath of Office they have become domestic enemies to We, the Sovereign Citizens; and

WHEREAS, Not only have they refused to heed their Oath of Office Contract with us, they are ignoring the mandates and provisions that We, the Sovereign Citizens, established in our Constitution for the United States of America and our Constitutions for the several States; and

WHEREAS. all of the provisions in each and every Constitution We have written are either Mandatory, or Prohibitory. Which We declare to mean that if an action is mandated in one of our Constitutions by We, the Sovereign Citizens, it must be done, and if a power or authority is not granted, it cannot be done; and

WHEREAS, We, the People, fully concur with the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling that no government has any inherent power to do anything other than the things that are specifically mandated by We, the Sovereign Citizens, in our various Constitutions

Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Indeed it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense, as an attribute of an independent political community. The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld. – Justice Field – Legal Tender Case, Julliard vs Greenman – 110 U.S. 421 (1884); and

WHEREAS, many of our Public Servants have run rampant in devising and establishing various departments, divisions, and other government functions that have no basis in our Constitutions, and in many cases are devised for the sole purpose of meeting some pre-conceived notion of benefitting themselves, or select members of society, to the detriment of We, the People,

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to regain the total and complete control over our government, We, the Sovereign Citizens do hereby declare the reestablishment of our Superior Common Law Court for each State Republic, with all of the power, authority, and rights that We, the Citizens hold in administering the functions and actions of our own Governments and of our Superior Common Law Courts.

WE FIRMLY DECLARE that the Common Law belongs to the People, for their exclusive use in all matters concerning our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness, the exact saame unalienable rights that were given to us by our Creator.

None of the governments that we created, and therefore, none of the courts created under our various Constitutions, hold any powers of Common Law, and therefore cannot make any ruling concerning any of our unalienable rights from our Creator.

It must be pointed out that in a Common Law Court there is no Judge, there are the 12 justices who comprise the jury. Also, there are no Attorneys. Each person who is a party to a dispute must answer the questions posed by the Justices, for himself, or herself. Thus a Common Law Court really is a Trial by Jury as We the People set forth and required in our Federal Constitution.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed – Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – Constitution for the United States of America

We also point out that the only law enforcement powers granted by We, the People, in the Federal Constitution, and in the various State Constitutions is to our State Militias. No Government has the power, or the authority, or the right to create any other law enforcement entity.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the fact that the Constitution does not grant any rights to the Common Laws, which are the very basis of all laws in this Country.

There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. – – Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

The words, Police, Sheriff, Marshal, Deputy, Prosecutor and Prison do not appear in our Federal Constitution. And no alternate form of those words appears. We, the People, did not give any government the power, or the authority to prosecute, or persecute, us in any way, and yet, the Federal Government, as well as many State Governments, have seen fit to create a virtual police state with a massive prison system, all of which is unconstitutional.

You also need to be aware of the fact that there are only three crimes that the Federal Government has the power to prosecute. These are:
• Counterfeiting the current coins and securities of the United States
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the High Seas
• Offenses against the Law of Nations

The following citations from the Constitution are the only provisions for the Federal Government to prosecute anyone.

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 6, Constitution for the United States of America

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10, Constitution for the United States of America

The office of Sheriff existed in the colonies before the ratification of our Constitution, and in England, going all the way back to the “Magna Charta” in 1215.

We, the Sovereign Citizens specifically reprimand the various State legistlatures and the several Governors for their failure to comply with our Constitutional mandate to establish, arm, and train the Militia. The establishment of the several State Militias, with all of their proper powers and authority, will be among the first actions taken by us.
We, the Citizens, are entitled to have proper, lawful, law enforcement officers execute the laws of the land, suppress insurrections and especially repel invasions such as the invasion of illegal aliens which is now going on among us.

In order to enforce the establishment of the Militia, We, the Sovereign Citizens, do hereby establish the rule that each and every member of the Militia must have his, or her, own gun, or be subject to a fine of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) and SIX (6) months in the County Jail. It is not right that a Militia Member should expect other Militia Members to protect and defend them. The Militia is charged with protecting and defending all of the Citizens, and each Militia Member must be fully prepared to discharge their duty. Neither the Federal Congress, or any of the State Legislatures, shall have the right to modify, or change, this rule in any manner, and, there shall not be any qualification check for the purchase of a gun, and the guns must not be registered in any manner. Any and all gun registration records must be destroyed immediately.

We, the People, hereby mandate that our duly elected County Sheriff is, and will be, under the control and direction of the Superior Common Law Court for the County, and will be the individual in charge of the Militia for the County. The Sheriff is the highest ranking, elected, law enforcement officer in a County and no law enforcement activity, of any kind may occur within the County without his express permission.

The militia shall consist of all able-bodied male inhabitants of the State, between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five years, except such as are exempted by law. We further expand upon this concept in that we open the Militia to any woman in the same age bracket who wants to participate, and order that anyone who wants to continue membership after sixty-five years of age may do so, provided they are in good health.

The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State. He shall work with the County Sheriffs to train and arm the Militia and, when necessary, to call out the militia to execute the laws of the Nation, or of the State, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.

We, the People, have been carefully taught by those who would exert their will over us, that the Militia, and the Common Law Courts, no longer exist.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights is still in full force and effect, and it says that decisions by the Superior Common Law Court cannot be reviewed by any other court, and the provisions in the various Constitutions concerning the Militia have never been changed.

The corrupt politicians, attorneys, judges, and bureaucrats know that they must destroy the truth behind the concepts of the Common Law and the Militias in order to leave the Citizens powerless and unable to protect and defend themselves. The last thing to go before we are completely dominated, is our right to bear arms, and, in spite of the clear mandate against any gun laws, they are doing everything in their power to get rid of our guns.

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. – Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America

We want to make it very clear that the most basic unalienable right given to us by our Father in Heaven is the right to protect and defend ourselves. Without that right, all of the other rights become meaningless because they can be taken from us by corrupt and evil men and women. Our right to defend ourselves is the underlying reason that our unalienable rights cannot, and should not, be bothered. We, the Sovereign Citizens, want to point out that:

WITH THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED OUR REPUBLIC,
AND WE WILL CONTROL ITS ACTIVITIES
THROUGH OUR USE OF OUR SUPERIOR COMMON LAW COURTS,
OUR COUNTY SHERIFFS, AND THE MILITIA, FROM THIS TIME FORWARD ! ! !

If you are currently holding a public office and do not want to work with us,
you are welcome to resign immediately.

Those Sovereign Citizens who want to add their voices to this action, can send an e-mail with their name, address, and phone number to reply@constitutionalconcepts.org and join with us.

Posted in Commentary, Jurisdiction, Politics

Who is Mitt Romney?


This is a verbatim report from the Two Minute Conservative… (Just cleaned up some formatting)

More From the Troops

Why Mitt Romney is Unlikable

A lot is being said in the liberal media about Mitt Romney not being “likable” or that he doesn’t “relate well” to people. Frankly, we struggled to understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this “unlikablility.”

Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:

1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can’t speak in a fake, southern, “black preacher voice” when necessary.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School…and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today’s America?

7. Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to Church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons….and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” deserves America’s scorn.

9. Oh yes…..he’s a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point…..pundits say because of his wealth, he can’t relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that’s because he made that money HIMSELF…..as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans.

My goodness, it’s a strange world, isn’t it?

*****************************************************

Personal Information:

His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.

His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan

He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan

He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.

Education:

B.A. from Brigham Young University,

J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University

Religion:

Mormon – The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints

Working Background:

After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.

After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.

In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States.

In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.

He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.

Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others.

He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign 1 year.

He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years.

He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.

He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.

He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.

He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.

And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income…. Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:

He will show us his birth certificate

He will show us his high school and college transcripts.

He will show us his social security card.

He will show us his law degree.

He will show us his draft notice.

He will show us his medical records.

He will show us his income tax records.

He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won’t desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility.

I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won’t like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney’s background can do it. But, on the minus side, he never was a “Community Organizer”, never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

Posted in Commentary, Politics | Tagged , , , ,

No More Grubberment Funding? Might be a Good Thing


So, funding for the grubberment runs out on Sept. 30th. Boehner and his ilk are, as usual, showing no backbone and saying that we will do everything possible to fund grubberment past that date (which includes obummer care). Why don’t we take this opportunity to re-think the whole funding thing…

So, come Sept 30th. Let grubberment close. No more deficit spending, no more giving billions to companies that close anyway etc… Then, have our elections. Keep grubberment un-funded until the new CONgress and President come into power. THEN get a budget passed. Dirty Harry Reid should be out of power by then and we just might get ACTUAL tax reform and a real budget passed…

On second thought… lets just get Boehner out of a position of power and put somebody in there that has a set and is willing to tell the do nothing Democrats (or the Tax the Rich because the 20% of the people who pay 80% of the taxes don’t pay enough Democrats) to go pound sand.

Check out this link for more on Boehner and his comments.

Just sayin`

Posted in Commentary, Politics | Tagged , ,