Posts Tagged ‘American Revolution’

Trutherator’s Weekly Watch

January 13, 2013


James O’Keefe of Project Veritas is finding that journalists who advocate gun-free zones are refusing free signs that declare their homes “gun-free”.

Many of the advocates of refusing to allow citizens to decide how to exercise their right to self-defense, and refusing to let them acquire the appropriate tools for the intent of the Second Amendment, which is to defend their families and our rights against tyranny, whether it come from foreign invasion or oppression from their own government.

Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party declares his line in the sand. As I’ve been sharing privately with others, at some point in the campaign to disarm Americans, a line will be crossed. There are great numbers of people declaring publicly and loudly telling them that they will not just give up their means of self-defense.

He reminds us that the spark for the American Revolution was the Brits’ attempts to confiscate their weapons.

Propaganda Media (my nickname for the semi-official media that act as government organs) has tried to pretend it’s about hunting and sport shooting, for the benefit of those who simply believe as they’re told and repeat what they’re told, but let us be very clear, it should be repeated in every discussion on the issue: There are reasons the natural right to the tools of self-defense should not be infringed that have to do with protection from assault, battery and robbery, but the number one reason for it, the number one reason the American revolutionaries put it into the Bill of Rights, was to make sure that the citizenry had the means to fight back against both foreign invasion and tyranny.

They did not even trust their own government, they especially did not trust any Army, and that’s why they put into law the principle of Posse Comitatus. They made a civilian and elected official the Commander-in-Chief, but they did not trust their own commanders-in-chief as a formal principle.

Even the very strong federalist James Madison, who favored a strong national government, proclaimed to the Constitutional Assembly that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty”, because they have always been the instruments of tyranny.

The American military, in my opinion, except for the very highest levels at the Joint Chiefs probably, is a possible exception to this, but it remains to be seen if their loyalty to the Constitution is tested when confronted with action inside the borders.

But the federal government has a great number of armed federal agents at its disposal, and in a few instances they have proven to be aggressive in carrying out illegal (unconstitutional) directives, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the ATF hustling guns to the most violent Mexican drug cartels. Like Judge Andrew Napolitano says in the title of his book, “It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”.

Pat Buchanan warned that there would be a revolution if the government tried to confiscate all arms, in response to a question as to whether it would be good to banish the Second Amendment.


A teacher is suing because she was ordered to get rid of all things from her area that had Christian connotation:

Turns out the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” protested her Christian articles. But declare this throughout the land: the First Amendment has no such thing. Both clauses of the part of the First Amendment that address religion, rather obviously are to recognition that there is a Freedom FOR religion, not “from” it.

Reminds me of someone who once said that his right not to listen trumps my right to free speech. I retorted very strongly that it does NOT because any such (non-existent) “right not to listen” would mean censorship.

Remember one high school was told to ban the opening prayer at football games, so at the next game, the kids in the stands spontaneously shouted the Lord’s Prayer.

So, now, after decades of speaking down at Americans, and losing its audience, Time Inc. will lay off about 700 staffers.


Their big salaries and expense accounts give new meaning to the Beatles’ song title, “A working man’s hero is something to be”.

Except not all the world’s workers want to go along with the Marxist anti-capitalist program. The “workers of the world” in Venezuela united alright, against Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez, and did a general strike, and marched against them on the day that Chavez operatives shot dead at least a dozen people and then his government refused to prosecute anybody.

The workers in America have refused to become Communist, although it looks like a small percentage already unionized are getting radicalized


One state attorney general says he’ll understand it, and there is another state that may pass legislation (or already did) that orders the arrest with penalties of any federal agent attempting to enforce Obamacare.


Apparently Vladimir Putin is not only reasserting central command-and-control government within the Russian borders, he is also moving to leverage Russia’s natural gas deliveries and the legacy of the Soviet-era transportation infrastructure to regain dominance over the former Soviet republics.


Remember that the biggest natural disasters and biggest political and social problems are exponentially magnified in urban areas, in the cities. Gerald Celente of Trends Research, who has made a lot of predictions that proved accurate, when pushed in interviews on the financial channels to recommend an investment, refuses to respond with anything other than farmland. That’s right, farmland.

But there is another more important preparation to make, and that is spiritual. The age-old question has been used as a cliché but it has its base in truth: “Are you prepared to meet your Maker?”


What is freedom?

December 11, 2012

“At the pleasure of the people” means (1) with the consent of the governed, but of course liberty involves much more than that anyway.

The point is that it is not the role of the people to serve the government but the government to serve the people, and with very clear, specific, lines that limit that law to the only legitimate role of protecting individual rights.

And blah blah, 50 examples show how to apply the principle of freedom in practice, something most people don’t understand. Specifics also help show how you apply your definition.

And the Constitution didn’t fall apart, it’s the people and the legislators and political hacks and shadow government that pushed the nation away from it.

If you look at the decisions that the nine black-robed deciders have made and that the Congress and the people have allowed to stick, you see that they don’t give a flying friggin’ freak what it actually says, or any “definition” therein.

“Freedom” is too much an abused word. The American revolutionaries got “freedom” from Britain but Alexander immediately started the process of enslaving the free with the Central Bank.

I’m “free” in the most real sense in that being in Christ, it doesn’t matter whatsoever state I’m in, one place is as good as another, Paul learned to abase and abound. I’m free of feeling overwhelmed by circumstances in reality, although my flesh doesn’t feel it that way.

But “freedom” in a civil, political sense just means your political and your economic rights are respected.

Golden Rule Government.

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog

November 2, 2011

From this link:

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog:

jlue says:

The US is a nation whose rights are derived by the consent of the governed from the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

She seems well-intentioned, and as a matter of fact there is some truth to it, as a written Constitution is the only way to provide a standard for a nation to govern itself. Besides which, a return to actually obeying the Constitution and applying it as the true “Supreme Law of the Land” as it says it is, would be a great gigantic leap forward in favor of the natural human rights mentioned therein. But…

Actually the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were rightly regarded by the Framers as rights held by men “endowed by their Creator”, some of which were articulated specifically therein. This is seen in not only the “endowed” phrasing in the Declaration, but also in the language of the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the free exercise of religion”, or “abridging…”, the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”, etcetera. The list refers to natural rights held by virtue of natural law, the laws of nature and of nature’s God, that exist independent of any Constitution or law anywhere in the world at anytime.

Common law is different. It grew “organically”, and what was known as common law during the times of the American Revolution was a body of understandings that had grown over centuries of jurisprudence in Britain, and that were generally based in Christian understandings of such concepts, such as fair and equal treatment.

In other words, the attempt to take  the “common law” concept we have inherited from our forefathers and from the Framers, and trying to hide it behind confusion with the idea of homogeneity with the way laws were applied elsewhere is ludicrous, and it should have been laughed to scorn by colleagues when some international socialist (just like national socialist) in the Justice Department proposed it.

“Common law” elsewhere did not embody such concepts of individual rights as in the West, and the move to bend our minds into thinking collectively (“graduated” income tax, central bank, fiat money, nationalization of the boom-bust cycle, taxes on groups) is a trick to subjugate our minds to orders from collective “leaders”– self-appointed of course.

But such is now the sign of the times, when the country’s leadership want to make the Bill of Rights and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into a distant memory of the past. Well it won’t be because “We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth”, and nobody can stop the rain of the refreshing waters of liberty, for “Whom the Son of Man sets free, is free indeed”.