Following is an edited copy of something I wrote in 2007. While you’ve been spared most of the tedium, I left the first paragraph in because I think in eight short years there is no longer an easy answer; the second paragraph stayed because the war goes on but now a Leftist backed unproven American is in charge and the pressure to withdraw has disappeared.
“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” – Patrick Henry
The vigilant, the active and the brave. Who among us have not considered those qualities as residing permanently somewhere within simply because we are Americans? Have we not responded in war and peace in manners consistent with Patrick Henry’s observation? Can we not all claim connection to those Colonial patriots who presented us with our freedom and liberty because we have always proved willing to go in harm’s way in defense of that freedom?
Why that is will be examined here, for we are being tested once more by our political leaders. This time against an abstract they call Terror. And because this war is having a profound impact on the freedom Colonial Americans fought for and presented to posterity, it is time to look closely to see if that freedom, the freedom our political leaders tell us we are defending, is still a reality today; for during the last six decades, the National characteristic of vigilance has been increasingly unable to shift into “the active, the brave” as American Ideals come under incessant attack. When did the will of the People, the power behind the concept of checks and balances, get neutralized?
Unlike most of our modern leaders, those who birthed our Nation held sacred their belief in the rights of the individual; including the right of the individual to be armed and organized. With twenty seven words our National muscle was defined and our future ability to maintain it, challenged.
A well-regulated Militia, as the Second Amendment demands, makes it clear that the militia was not to be a rabble. It was to be well, regulated. Systematic. Part of a system that back then was on a short leash and closely watched.
being necessary to the security of a free State, a State created with a purpose consistent with the well-being of Its sovereign Citizens and watchful of tyrants. The sovereign Citizens were the State. If the militia was to be put under the control of a State it must be remembered that State was not intended to exist without the cooperation and will of the People. Sovereign Citizens are involved citizens.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If, in any ensuing confrontations with a tyrannical force, foreign or domestic, the Citizens are not to be denied a means to defend themselves.
Our Founder’s crowning works, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have inspired people worldwide for more than two centuries. Those two documents translated and set forever the discontent of decades into a prevailing belief in the sovereignty of the individual and fueled the colonial citizens determination to realize their ambition of gaining a greater freedom and an unlimited opportunity to succeed. The bloody trail that marked their passage to Valley Forge that winter of 1777 was their signature commitment to the lofty ideals defined by their leaders.
That spirit of young America jumped from paper to harsh reality because of the men and women of the militia. Individuals who put their belief in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to work.
In 1776, when equality was proclaimed a birthright and maintaining firm control over government a duty, the citizens were attentive. They set the standard for future generations to live up to.
Now, it appears we sat too long smugly believing those sacrifices and achievements of the brave men and women of our Revolution were some kind of permanent security blanket protecting us forever from tyranny; for in our self-satisfaction we failed to recognize and take seriously our ruthless enemy’s boundless and unceasing efforts to destroy the freedom from earthly kings we as sovereign citizens enjoyed.
So just what does being a sovereign citizen mean? According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, sovereign is an adjective defined as 1. above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme 2. supreme in power, rank, or authority 3. of or holding the position of ruler; royal; reigning 4. independent of all others ( a sovereign state) 5. excellent; outstanding 6. as a cure or remedy.
According to Webster’s dictionary, the politicians have it bass-ackwards.
And according to the Constitution, those bass-ackward public servants have no authority to limit our freedom, nor our sovereignty. No human does. And yet, since that fateful September Eleventh, our public servants have been mounting attack after attack on our Sovereignty. And they’re not just going to give US back anything with a smile and a wink. We have to take it back.
We must protect our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We, not the Statist forces, are the keepers of our freedom. And We, the People, are tasked with safeguarding it. If we continue to surrender our power piecemeal to would-be tyrants, if we continue to act like subjects instead of Sovereigns, if we continue to accept their attacks on our future, we are lost. We won’t even have our triumphant memories to lean on.
“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” – Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention 1787.
Is Benjamin Franklin’s Eighteenth Century challenge even relevant for Twenty-first Century America?
First, he identified our Nation upon its founding as a Republic born a Nation of Laws.
Then, he implied it’s not easy being free.
Quite prescient of Mr. Franklin since during most of our previous century events unfolded in such a way that today:
We are called a Democracy
Our Laws are a matter of convenience and
Our freedom appears to be transforming into Statist defined rights.
And, as Mr. Franklin suggested, it’s all happening with little effort on our part.
Over the last three decades, interest in the militia movement has waxed and waned. Repeated media identification of the KKK, skinheads and the catch-all ‘domestic terrorist’ as militia has projected a strong negative perception that is designed to subvert and weaken the sovereign status of the American people.
That negative perception is a lie.
Guided by misinformation about the American militia, provided (or not) by official information sources, some confused citizens still trust that the two political parties will do what is best for our Country even after our role is reduced from sovereign to entitled.
It is time we openly acknowledge that also is a lie.
The following is based on ARMED CITIZENS, CITIZEN ARMIES: TOWARD A JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT by David T. Hardy found at http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn* You are heartily encouraged to read the entire work there.
The roots of the American militia can be traced back to the Fyrd, the early militia of Saxon England, circa 690 A.D.
Long before the Norman conquest of Britain, Saxon law required every free man to keep the weapons of an infantryman handy and to serve in the local militia to be called up upon threat of invasion, thus establishing the militia’s defensive nature. The flaw in the Saxon’s Fyrd was the military duty was owed to the person who granted the land to the armed freeman, not to the Sovereign who governed.
The Normans fixed that problem. In 1086, William the Conqueror made every landowner swear fealty to him.
Over the next couple of centuries, in direct opposition to what we’ve come to expect from our modern government, more laws were presented that required not only free men but serfs, too, to be armed. In the Fourteenth century Richard II banned the game of horseshoes so that more time could be spent shooting arrows. The price of bows was even controlled so everyone could afford one.
Meanwhile, on the Continent of Europe, the rulers maintained tight control of their weapons, not allowing the peasant’s even a glimpse of the tools of freedom.
The English, on the other hand, came to believe a well armed Englishman was the model of a free man. The Militia provided them a fair measure of liberty that Royalty respected.
During the Seventeenth century, the winds of favor shifted dramatically against the commoners.
Increasing Papist pressure and the resulting need of the Royalist’s for higher taxes sharpened the differences between the empire building minded Monarchists and the authority absorbing Parliament.
The commoners were less inclined to give a rat’s patoot about how their leaders viewed the big picture as long as they, the commoners, weren’t harassed severely.
Monarchist and Parliament toads continued to lurch onward, beyond the bounds of power struggle, until their differences escalated into a Civil War.
The king, Charles I, was forced from London early on because of fears for his families safety and well-being, but remained king.
As one might imagine, the populace was split over who they supported. More commoners sided with Parliament against the Royalists favored by Rome. In an effort to prevent those commoners who disagreed with his royal point of view from taking action against him, Charles tried to confiscate their weapons. He was not successful. In the end, Parliament prevailed and Charles I was put to death.
Then, Parliament, too, started having second thoughts about their position. A society that had so many armed citizens started to make them, and their gentry benefactors, nervous. Intent on gaining control of the Militia and downsizing the standing army, Parliament passed the Militia Ordinance.
Shortly afterwards, government was taken over by the military and a new Parliament, a Rump Parliament, was installed.
They promptly rescinded the Militia Ordinance.
Modern politicians must share the same DNA as those Parliamentarians. Equally likely is the same evil forces are following the same evil plan.
Much like our political leaders who refuse to yield to the American people on illegal immigration issues, the Parliament tried again to enact a similar bill to the Militia Ordinance in 1654.
That resulted in their dissolution.
In 1654, Oliver Cromwell emerged as the Lord Protector of England. He dissolved, then resurrected Parliament, then dissolved it again in order to turn England into military districts, each under the control of an Army general who instituted political surveillance and censorship.
The Rump Parliament, or rather what was left of it, was recalled in 1659, after Cromwell’s death.
Shortly thereafter they ordered an accounting from London householders that required them to report to the government how many, and the names of, persons staying in their homes. If weapons were kept, to list them and the ammunition. They also empowered government officials to confiscate those weapons and ammunition.
These tumultuous times in England had a direct bearing on how and why our Founders set the foundation for our political freedom.
Within a week of ordering the list of people and weapons in and around London to be drawn up, the officials administering that statute were given the power to
…search for and seize all arms, in the custody and possession of any popish recusant, or other person that hath been in arms against the Parliament, or that have adhered to the enemies thereof, or any other person whom the Commissioners shall judge dangerous to the peace of this Commonwealth…
From that statute, came the fear of maintaining a standing army the American colonists inherited. The army they knew was used, not in the defense of the Realm, but to force the citizenry into submission.
That Rump Parliament didn’t last much longer after that attack on the Subjects. A segment of the army, led by one of the generals, went to London, dissolved it again and called for a new Parliament. That Parliament called for the return of Royalist rule by inviting Charles II to sit on the throne. They also maintained a pro-papist position.
The vultures conspiracy to protect their interests and enslave the common people was then put into action.
Upon the return of a king, the new Parliament started enacting laws that broadened the definition of treason and censored the press. They continued to enact laws that targeted those who aligned themselves with the anti-Rome activists. Parliament proved to be favorable to the Royalists but were mostly concerned with protecting their own and the landed gentry’s power.
The king and Parliament, however, had a huge problem. All the weapons the people had been encouraged to gather in the past were still out there beyond London and it’s suburbs.
Meanwhile, the king’s army of 60,000 had less than 5,000 guns between them. The king had to fix that if he was to have the control London hungered for.
Of his own volition, Charles created a force answerable only to him in an attempt to disarm the people. His instructions were for the militia leaders to call up the troops, seek volunteers willing to work in small groups to watch and prevent restless citizens from gathering and to seize their weapons. There was then, as now, no lack of people with flawed character willing to advance their position in life at the expense of the innocent.
Charles got the volunteers needed and then some.
A few months later a militia bill he endorsed was introduced into the House of Commons but it’s heavy-handed demands gave way too much leeway to his organized militia gun searches. It created such resistance it was dropped.
Almost two years passed before Charles got his version of the Dream Act. He might have had to concoct a few plots against the government here and there and put many of his father’s friends in positions to help him, but hey, it was all out in the open court yards.
This Militia Act of 1662, spelled out who was eligible for the militia. It also provided a substitution clause they could use to get out of militia duty if they felt it too burdensome. If a substitute was hired for an eligible, the original eligible was required to swear to not take arms against the king.
The Militia Act of 1662 also gave Lieutenants of the militia the power to confiscate the weapons of any person they judged to be a danger to the kingdom.
It also required gunsmiths to keep and provide records of weapons manufactured retroactive to six months and a list of purchasers and to file weekly sales reports.
Commoners were also forbidden to carry without a royal license and commerce was interrupted by import limits placed on firearms.
Only an Immortal could appreciate how quickly these 350 year cycles come back around.
Most of us still think every day is another chance for a new beginning.
The skid to general disarmament was greased in 1671 when the non-landowning citizens were targeted. The appropriately named Hunting Acts limited hunting to the elite, the creme de la creme of the landowners and other wealthy gentry.
It also expanded the prohibition that forbade the use of traps, set by various poaching laws, to include guns and bows.
Meanwhile, opponents of the burgeoning police state coalesced as the Whig party. They called for another dissolution of Parliament.
James II, the out of the closet Catholic leader of the Anglican church, followed his brother Charles, to the throne. Because of his Catholic connections, rebellion soon followed his ascendancy to the crown.
When the local militia proved incapable of ending the insurgency the regular army was called out.
The king’s officers went from house to house searching for and seizing the arms they found.
James created further dissension by using his royal ‘dispensing powers’ to allow Catholic officers into his expanding army, doing an end run around the Test Acts that prohibited non-Anglicans from holding government positions.
Rumors flew that James would impose his religion by military force.
With anti-royalist Whigs most often the targets of these searches, it soon became apparent that disarming the people was the means for destroying the Whigs resistance.
While James’ tyrannical acts were causing tremendous distress, anger and concern among the targeted, his order to include Ireland in his plan to enslave the people proved enlightening to we who can look back. The local Irish authorities set about to enforce James edict of forced disarmament with enthusiasm.
They disarmed the English colonists in Ireland in short order.
A month after receiving the king’s order, the Military Commandant of Ireland saw fit to report a marked increase of bandit activity against the recently disarmed English colonists. These bandits, known as Tories back on the Auld Sod, provided early documentable proof that when guns are outlawed, outlaws get very active. A natural law that liberals refuse to accept.
James’ religious policies and his heavy handed behavior finally alienated the Anglican Parliament who joined forces with the Whigs. This led to the Glorious Revolution and his replacement by his son-in-law and daughter, William of Orange and Mary.
James fled to his papist friends on the Continent and his abandonment led to major questions. The Tories, the political party of the elite, not the Irish bandits, were in a philosophical twist over their belief in the Divine right of kings. That it had turned into an endless source of jokes for the Commoners didn’t help. The Whigs, meanwhile, were looking to find a way to protect the kingdom from future despots.
The answers were found at the convention called by Parliament. The English government was in a state of suspension pending the convention’s outcome so the agreement had to be accomplished quickly.
That agreement they reached declared James’ flight from England was a violation of Divine Right and he had, therefore, abdicated his kingship. That soothed the Tories torment.
The Whig’s were pleased that the rights of the royal subjects were defined in the newly proclaimed Declaration of Rights. Before William and Mary acceded to the throne they agreed to abide by the Declaration.
William and Mary then called Parliament together and the Declaration of Rights was enacted as the Bill of Rights. A notably meaningful inclusion to their Bill of Rights was the recognition of the individuals right to bear arms, which is the intended point of all the history laid out in the preceding lines. The governmental recognition of the natural right for citizens to bear arms goes back to the Seventeenth century. And that legal precedent did not come easy.
Charles and his brother James had left such bitterness behind, complaints against James’ attempts to subvert the laws and liberties of the kingdom by disarming the Protestants and arming the Catholics were included in the Declaration.
This Bill of Rights was not introducing any new concepts to the English. It was looked upon as formalizing the existing rights of Parliament (first) and then, the outraged subjects. It would be the basis of our Constitution. The priorities would be reversed, though, and with God’s blessing will remain that way.
The Whig leadership was insistent that the basis of political freedom was the individual ownership of arms, formation of a citizen army and the limitation of standing armies.
In Maxims of State, Sir Walter Raleigh observed that “barbarous tyrants would plan to unarm the people of weapons, money and all means whereby they may resist his power”.
In Political Disquisitions, written before our Revolution escalated to a shooting war, William Burgh, an English Whig politician wrote:
The confidence which a standing army gives a minister, puts him upon carrying things with a higher hand than he would attempt to do if the people were armed and the court [royal officials] unarmed, that is, if there were no land force in the nation, but a militia. Had we at this time no standing army, we should not think of forcing money out of the pockets of three millions of our subjects. We should not think of punishing with military execution, unconvicted and unheard, our brave American children, our surest friends and best customers…. We should not–but there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Gal 5:13-14)
Today, as a Nation, we have wandered far from the wisdom that guided our first leaders. Lead from the path they lighted, we are being conditioned to exist in a grey area being readied by traitors. This grey area leaves many of us scratching our heads wondering just what is going on. It also precedes our perdition.
Any further acceptance on our part of their laws of intrusion and restriction, long favored by the Democrat and Republican Parties, will be all the approval the globalist minded traitors need to lock us down in a police state.
Barack Obama’s ledger of abuses has been noted elsewhere on this website. They are only a continuation of Executive actions that have made fundamental change a political cycling event. During the three previous presidential administrations we have been:
Formally introduced to the New World Order and NAFTA by President George Herbert Bush;
dragged into the World Trade Organization by the cooperation of a lame duck Congress led by Senator Bob Dole, Congressman Newt Gingrich ( both Republicans ) and Democrat President Clinton even though US citizens overwhelmingly opposed it and;
told by President George Walker Bush there was nothing we could do to stop the illegal invasion. In the meantime, a North American Union was being pursued clandestinely by agents of his administration funded unwittingly by American taxpayers.
Those are just a few of the actions taken by our political leaders that are in direct opposition to their oaths of office, our Constitution and our Nation’s best interests.
And now through the imagined authority of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, that globalist hallucination brought to life in a behind the scenes maneuver shielded by President George W Bush’s reassurances that it doesn’t exist, the UN has been empowered to send troops into our Country when the Avian flu hits.
It is bad enough our borders are violated every day by thousands of people and our leadership assumes a helpless, there is nothing we can do (except pass the costs of that invasion onto US citizens) attitude. But to invite foreign troops into our Country? Will we be willing to submit to another officially sanctioned invasion?
Those of us who are just now awakening to the disconnect from what we believed we once were, and who are beginning to realize that tyranny is breathing down our necks, are faced with a choice.
Are we to continue rolling over for the Statist political machine? Or will we start acting like the Americans we claim to be and take the action necessary to ensure our freedom and the freedom of our future generations?
And what action is ours to take?
Right now, there are still only two. Peaceful and preparatory. They co-exist very well but peace is soon lost when someone isn’t prepared.
Political vigilance means acquiring as true and as thorough an understanding of candidates and their agendas as we can determine. It means we have to look past the sound bytes and photo ops managed by the evening news. We have to cut through the fog of lies surrounding their strategy of misdirecting doublespeak. Political vigilance means we have to fight the influence of those in-place agents of change who activate the recommendations of their One World manipulators.
And yet, even as the dismantlement of the US and its Constitution proceeds openly, Americans continue to pay homage to the monster that devours our young and mocks the survivors.
Remembering the days of my youth the political chicanery of the times was often explained away with the excuse, ‘they must know something we don’t’. I’ve just begun to see the truth in that. Treasonous politicians know that the majority of US citizens refuse to believe the Democrat and Republican parties are as complicit in the destruction of our Sovereignty as the political traitors appear to be.
The late Senator Arlen Specter, once publicly admitted and accused another Senator of not being a defender of the Constitution as they swore they would be before entering office. In a shouting match that took place in public, Senator Specter blustered at Sen. Russ Feingold:
“I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.
The senators were, at the time, working to determine additional specific ‘rights’ regarding full marriage equality that we as a redefined Republic-Democratic society seem to require.
Rights designed to ensure, for those who may not consider themselves equal to others in today’s society, a feel good empowerment to act out their self-importance in the emerging totalitarian waste land we are being driven to.
What’s to be more alarmed about? That the senator freely and openly admits his betrayal of his Oath of Office? Or that the senators think they have to redefine the phrase ‘all men are created equal’?
What part of ‘Enemies foreign and domestic’ don’t you understand?
In the good old days of the Twentieth Century, paying your taxes, going to war and voting for carefully presented candidates was the level of citizen participation encouraged by the prejudiced few and accepted by the proud many.
In return, we teeming masses came to expect a high degree of control over our borders, food we can eat safely, schools that educate our children smartly, work places protected from our domestic enemies and an air defense system that protects us from the foreign enemies our politicians cultivate.
Reasonable expectations from a reasonable, optimistic, mostly law abiding people.
Evidence is mounting, however, that suggests ‘reasonable’ is a character trait only the shrinking American middle class must bear. Especially when faced with yet another burden mandated by the Federal government.
While we are being reasonable…
Border control is relaxed and the working stiff middle class foots the bill;
food shopping requires a fatalistic attitude;
our children, compared to the children of thirty other nations, rank seventeenth in reading, math and sciences;
jobs are being sent overseas or Americans are being replaced here in our own Country by frenetic corporate coyotes
and our promised security consists of searching Americans thoroughly before they board a plane.
Yet, we still pay taxes, still go off to fight the wars globalists start and our politicians champion and we still vote for carefully presented candidates. Instead of reasonable, an argument might be made that we are collectively insane.
Are we nuts? Maybe. Albert Einstein is alleged to have said it this way. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
What if we aren’t insane, though? What if we, instead, are being led to believe our National backbone no longer exists and we are better off without it?
You might think that’s a crazy statement what with our over-extended military fully engaged in the Middle East and present in countries around the world. What Country could have a better backbone?
A.) A Country that holds true to it’s Constitution.
B.) A Country whose elected officials act on behalf of the citizens not a hidden power.
C.)A Country whose destiny is not determined by a shadow government.
D.) All of the above.
The correct answer is D. But, a shadow government? What shadow government? And what’s that got to do with our Country?
While our determined elected public servants and their bureaucratic legions are busy morphing into untouchables, whiffs of the stench their treasonous actions generate are churning into clouds of obnoxia for an increasing number of Americans.
Even as we’re unable to plumb the depth and breadth of their treason, they continue on arranging the behind-the-scene serotinous collapse of our nation. The Democrat and Republican parties, the 19th Century lubricant of change for the 21st Century speed-of-light capable elite, can no longer deny their abandonment of the American Way.
The Democrat-Republican coalition running our Nation has, in recent years, passed a wide assortment of laws that are changing our fundamental rights. Our more recent presidents have been writing increasingly dangerous Executive Orders and bureaucrats are working feverishly with foundations to slide US into a Parliamentary governed North American Union.
The Democrat-Republican coalition did not listen when 80% of US told them NO to World Trade Organization involvement. Instead, Republicans Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich helped Democrat Bill Clinton get the WTO agreement approved by a lame duck congress.
The Democrat-Republican coalition directly subverted the will of the citizens of California trying to deal with the illegal invasion. A Federal judge blocked the implementation of voter approved Proposition 187 and Democrat Governor Gray Davis (later recalled from Office), did not appeal the ruling, thus rendering the judgment final.
The Democrat-Republican coalition is now choking on the American citizen’s resolve to prevent amnesty for illegal invaders ever again. That does not mean the coalition is not continuing its work to once more subvert the will of the people. Republicans and Democrats have no problem supporting a Heinrich Himmler maneuver to avoid choking on the Sovereign citizen’s will.
Our choices are clear. We can be Sovereigns or suckers.
We can work to vote all incumbents who have proved themselves failures at serving their constituents and the Constitution out of office.
And that means at every level. Local, State and Federal. If you are concerned that those who replace them are inexperienced, (and hopefully you will avoid replacing them with anyone connected to the Democrat-Republican warbird), consider the Senator from Illinois.
He is being seriously touted as a candidate for the presidency by the globalist forces and he is still wet behind the ears as a senator.
The shadow government doesn’t seem to mind inexperience.
The other Democrat candidate claims she is the more experienced candidate. In what? Exploiting tax payers? She, too, has the backing of globalists.
Taking back control may seem to be a most formidable task. But consider the alternative of existing in a world where our Sovereignty has been transformed into subjugation and our grandchildren are raised as mindless slaves by the State.
Public educators have been dumbing down North American children for decades now, everybody knows that. Which is why there is such a strong home-school movement and a growing anti-home school movement launched against them.
We all should be aware by now that change is best accomplished and accepted when it is done incrementally. Dumbing down America started decades ago. Disarming America started decades ago. Enslaving America started decades ago. We have much ground to recapture.
If we cannot win this battle with the entrenched enemies of our Constitution politically, we better get cracking on the preparatory part. There is too much history that current events and existing laws can be identified with to suggest these political piranha’s are going to remain benevolent.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders stated that Man is endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Today, our leaders are unquestionably more in touch with the United Nation’s belief that the State exists to dispense rights to humanity.
It is imperative we remember that if their version of State power can giveth, their version of State power can certainly taketh away.
That is the highly redacted writing from 2007 I titled Militia Rescue. The American people have risen to the political challenge time and again since that was written but as you probably noticed some issues just won’t go away.
Our children’s minds are still being targetted, the invasion is still being supported by the elitist through the Obama administration and we still aren’t supposed to call Islamic terrorists terorists.
Like I said, the more things change…