POINTS TO PONDER: Can the Rest of the World Stay Free and Prosperous if America Looses the 2nd Amendment?

How many of us remember this man and this speech?

That ‘intellectual elite’ about which Reagan spoke is in charge of the majority of our government and social institutions.  With the exception of our elected representatives, this ‘elite’ is self-appointed.  They have risen to power though nepotism and cronyism: both of which bely their claim to being ‘elite’ in the first place.  Were they truly superior, then they would have no need to take power through deception and corruption as they have; they could do it in the open, and the people would willingly support them.  But they do not run in the open.  They hide in the shadows and operate behind fronts such as ‘Move On’ and ‘The TIDES Foundation’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ and a host of other false faces.  So let us dispense with the notion that they are elite and call them what they really are: a cabal of corrupt and power-hungry individuals who have nothing but disdain for this nation and her People.  And they are not alone.  This cabal extends to the governments and social institutions of nearly the entire world, and it is they who are behind the push to repeal the American 2nd Amendment.

Make no mistake: this push is a deliberate, well thought out and highly coordinated attack on the Natural Rights of the American People.  The 2nd Amendment does not grant the individual the right to keep and bear arms: it merely acknowledges it and forbids the Federal and State governments from abridging this right.  It is an acknowledgment that the right to self-defense is a Natural Right, and therefore, an inalienable right.  It further acknowledges that a just government can have no authority over this Natural Right.  And again, make no mistake: that right does not only include the right to protect one’s life, the life of one’s family and one’s property, but also the right to defend one’s communist from outside threat.  This includes the threat of a tyrannical government, and it is why the founders used the word ‘arms’ and stated that this includes all the ‘terrible weapons of the common soldier,’ both defensive and offensive.  This is because the 2nd Amendment was and is still intended to ensure the People always retain the ability to resist a government that seeks to enslave them.

Now, it is popular for people to say that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, and has no place in modern society.  These people would have you think that the police and the military will protect you, and therefore, you have no need to protect yourself or the nation.  But they never tell you that they have excused the police from any duty to protect you through their corrupt courts.  That is a fact.  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual or their property.  Their only purpose is to pick up your dead body, collect evidence and try to apprehend the people who killed and/or stole from you.  As for the notion that the military will protect you: well, they don’t tell you the whole story there, either.  The military has been turned against the American People many times.  In New Orleans, it was used to collect the legally owned weapons of law abiding citizens without warrant or cause.  They never got them back.  This is just one example.  There are more.  And this does not address the fact that there are many extra-Constitutional para-military forces within the various levels of government disguised as ‘law enforcement.’  Nor does it mention that all of these forces are controlled not by the People, but by this ‘elite’ that has usurped control over nearly every aspect of America and its People.  No, they never mention or even acknowledge any of this.  They simply act as though no one has any need to fear them because they have our best interests in mind.  Well, if that were true, they would have no need to hide any of this, now would they?

Then there are the coordinating voices calling for gun control in the media, our schools and our entertainment industry.  All of these people push a carefully constructed narrative intentionally designed to lead all but the most free-thinking truth seekers to one ultimate conclusion: that we really would be safer if the 2nd Amendment were repealed.  But this is propaganda.  It is propaganda because it does not tell the entire story.  First of all, they never address the real reason for the 2nd Amendment: to prevent people like themselves from being able to trap the American People under their tyrannical rule.   And to those who doubt they wish to rule, and rule by force if necessary, I would point them to the way they destroy people they once praised simply because they oppose the ‘elitist’ agenda.  If they will do this with the 2nd Amendment still in force, what will they be like if it is repealed?  Then there are all the supposed ‘facts’ they present about gun control.  When they compare numbers, they never mention the millions of crimes stopped or prevented by private gun owners every year.  Nor do they do any calculus on how many of the lives that are lost to gun violence which may have been saved had private citizens been allowed to carry their weapons.  How many of these gun-related deaths would have been prevented without gun control?  Finally, we have the different nations these ‘elite’ like to use as examples of how well gun control works.  They never tell you that Australia has done studies that found their gun control laws have had no significant affect on violent crime and suicide, do they?  Nor do they mention how knife attacks and other forms of violent killing have gone up in England — especially London.  Do they mention how high the murder rates with knives and bats are in Mexico?  Or the increasing use of bombs and cars or trucks to kill people in these nations they set up as examples?  NO!  They ignore all of it because, for propaganda to work, he narrative must be tightly controlled and repeatedly pounded into the audiences’ heads.

There’s more.  We have not addressed factors such as mental health, law enforcement deliberately ignoring the warnings of friends and family and the role of violent video games and music.  These are all factors the ‘elite’ ignore or down-play, and none of them have anything to do with the gun.  In fact, the ‘elite’ never even acknowledge that the problem is the heart of the person using the gun.  They simply focus on the thing and use it to terrify the People.  How is that not terrorism?  It is the incitement of fear for political gain.  That is the very definition of terrorism.  So, given all of this, we should ask ourselves why there is such a push to take away America’s guns?  What are they really after?  Well, let’s consider England.

In England, they are now banning knives and putting warning labels on butter knives.  I have heard they are even talking about waiting lists to buy silverware?  They are apparently stopping people at random on the streets and searching them for weapons, or anything perceived to be a weapon.  They are putting people in jail for face Book posts and even for flipping off a traffic camera.  YES!  I have read actual news reports about this.  And now?  Now the government has a judge who declared that a baby who needs medical treatment is not a person and should be denied food and water so it will die.  They have denied other nations who have volunteered to treat the child the right to do so.  They won’t even let the parents take their child home.  No, the government has claimed ownership of this child, declared it is no longer human and condemned it to death — all because the government declared this child to be a burden on the health care system.  Folks, this is the exact same thing as Hitler’s T4 program.  Look it up.  it is what lead to the death camps, and England has started down that exact same road.  Now, what can the English People do about any of this?  Not mush.  They can vote for people to stop it, but when the system only gives them choices between this self-appointed ‘elite’ or that one, they still get another tyrant in office.  No, they have nothing they can do but accept their fate.  But this is not the case in America!

This sort of thing has also started in the U.S., but we still have the 2nd Amendment.  When the government tried to steal hundreds of cows from a rancher out West, the People stopped the government using their personal weapons.  There are other cases where the People have resisted government tyranny, as well.  This nation was born of such a resistance.  This is why the ‘elite’ want to repeal the 2nd Amendment: because it is the last thing standing in their way of seizing total power over the American People.

Now, consider this.  This ‘elite’ who have seized power in America sympathizes with Marx.  They want open boarders and redistribution of America’s wealth.  They don’t just want Socialism, they want Communism.  Hillary even said so, it’s just that no one is educated in this country anymore, so the American People did not understand what she was saying.  When Hillary said she was an early Twentieth Century Progressive, she was saying she is a Communist.  Woodrow Wilson even explained it in his essays on Progressivism, Government and Administration.  So, if a person has any understanding of history — especially the history of Communism — and they envision an America where the 2nd Amendment has been repealed, how can they imagine that anyone like Trump will ever be elected again?  he won’t, because the pretenses will be dropped, the GOP will stop pretending to be an opposition Party, and the One-Party system will take over total control of the American government and Society.  And sine this ‘Progressive’ Party is Communist, and they are in bed with Communist nations such as Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba, there is no doubt they will pursue similar agendas as their allies in these nations.  What, then, would this mean for the rest of Europe?  Without America to support them, how long before Putin just demands Europe abdicates their sovereignty to him?  And do you really doubt this will happen?

Without the 2nd Amendment, the people who will seize total control over America will also turn on Israel.  These American ‘elite’ are also in bed with Islam.  This is well documented using public sources (see Horowitz’s “Unholy Alliance”).  If America suddenly switches sides in the Middle East, how long will it be before Israel is forced to use nuclear weapons to protect itself?  And if Russia and most likely America are aligned with the Arab nations, what is the likelihood that this exchange will remained contained?  And what of Europe in this case?  If the Arabs are nuked by Israel, how is the Muslim population in Europe going to react?  And who will support Europe if there is an uprising?

Seriously, dear reader, if the 2nd Amendment is lost, how long do you think America will remain ‘good?’  What will stop the new rulers from banning Christianity?  Or putting Conservatives in jail for voicing opposition to them?  It has happened before.  Wilson did it, FDR did it.  Obama was allowed to use the IRS and FBI against his enemies.  Now the FBI is being used to destroy a duly elected President.  How much worse will this all get when they know there is nothing the People can do to stop them?  And if you think this won’t happen…  Well, I suggest you study history a little closer — even modern Western history — because it has happened and will happen again.  It always happens.  So, when America turns dark — and it will — what becomes of the rest of the world?  I am serious.  Ask yourself that question.  What becomes of the rest of the world if America looses the 2nd Amendment?

LESSONS IN LOGIC: Latest Ruling on DACA is Perfect Example of the Subversive Agenda Hidden in the Issue of Illegal Aliens

Have you seen the news about the judge who recently ruled that President Trump cannot end the DACA program?  That ruling is unlawful.  It should be vacated and the judge should be impeached and — possibly — charged with and tried for subversion. But there are two issues here.  The first is a coordinated act of subversion on the part of the States, Courts and many politicians.  The second is a judge who has assumed the authority to aplply one set of rules to one Political Party, and another set of rules to the other.  Let’s start with the greater issue first: subversion.

Levin: ‘This is judicial tyranny. You’re viewing it now.’

We do not need to be lawyers or Constitutional ‘experts’ to see that this judge has exceeded his authority.  All we need to do is apply logic and common sense to the wording of the Constitution.  Let’s start with the only language in the Constitution related to immigration:

Article I, Section 8, Line 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

OK, this does not address immigration, therefore, we should assume that immigration is not under the authority of the Federal government.  I understand that they passed laws placing immigration under Federal control, but those laws are — themselves — unconstitutional.  In order to grant the federal government authority over something that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution, that area must be added by Amendment, not the passing of a law.  This means that the Federal government never had control over who was allowed into the States and, therefore, it still should not have that authority.  But look at what is addressed!

The Constitution grants the authority to regulate naturalization.  What does this mean?

NATURALIZATION, noun [See Naturalize] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, vesting certain tribunals with the power.

Therefore, Congress does have control over the process by which a person becomes a citizen and, by this process, is granted the privileges of citizenship.  One of those privileges is the right to vote.  This means that any illegal alien who votes is breaking the law, and any State or political organization that encourages and/or helps illegals vote is also breaking the law.  This is also found in the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Next question: what does the Constitution mean by a ‘republican form of government?’  Well, look up what ‘republic’ meant at the time and apply that to the form of government in the several States:

REPUB’LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

We can keep playing these definition games, but that shouldn’t be necessary — not for any intellectually honest person seeking to understand this issue.  It should already be clear that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate naturalization and to insure a republican form of government.  The ‘People’ of the States does not refer to any and all human beings living within a State, but to the citizens of those States.  We know this because the Constitution addresses the rights of citizens as opposed to aliens living within a State:

Article IV, Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

14th Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally, a citizen is defined as:

CITIZEN, noun

1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.

Clearly, a citizen is someone who is differentiated from a non-citizen.  The Constitution defines a citizen as someone born in the United States, or who has been naturalized.  Congress has sole authority over the process of naturalization.  If anyone other than a citizen votes, this violates the right to a republican form of government as it destroys the concept of ‘representation’ by allowing non-citizens to participate in the government.  To illustrate this in the extreme, if non-citizens are allowed to vote, then the people of the world might as well all vote in our nation’s various elections.  No!  The Constitution is clear: only citizens can vote, and a citizen is a person who is born in this country or who has been properly naturalized.

This then means that anyone — anyone — who advocates, supports, encourages or makes it possible for a non-citizen to vote is in violation of the Constitution.  Furthermore, if the case of political organizations and especially representatives and servants of the people, such an act would also constitute subversion (and in the case of public representatives and servants, a violation of their oaths).  This judge should know all of this, which means he not only violated the Constitution, but he did so willingly.  Furthermore, this judge presumed authority not granted to him by the Constitution.  In fact, he presumed the authority to usurp authority rightly given to the Congress.  This is why the judge should be removed and prosecuted for subversion.  However, we should not stop with this one judge.  We should go after all judges, politicians, and bureaucrats who have acted– in any way — to enable illegals to vote.  We should also charge any and all organizations that have provided assistance toward this end with subversion and, upon demonstrating that they have actually helped illegals to vote, we should dissolve those organizations and prosecute their leadership.  This would be the lawful way to deal with this systematic and coordinated act of organized subversion.

Fortunately, dealing with the favoritism in this specific ruling is much easier.  DACA was established by a stroke of President Obama’s pen.  This means President Trump can change or eliminate it with the stroke of a pen.  If Trump does not have such authority — as this judge claims — then Obama did not have the authority to establish DACA in the first place.  That then means DACA is unlawful and should be eliminated on that ground.  But, if Obama is going to be assumed to have had that authority, then Trump must also have the authority to change or eliminate it.  If not, the judge is committing another act of subversion by trying to usurp the President’s authority to himself and the Court.  Therefore, Trump should either be allowed to do as he wishes with DACA, or DACA should be ended on the grounds that it is unconstitutional (incidentally, DACA actually is unconstitutional.  It carries the weight of law, and, therefore, must originate in Congress.  No President has any authority to create anything that carries the weigh of law.  That would be an unconstitutional usurping of Congressional authority to the Executive.)

Either way, this ruling should be vacated and the judge removed from the bench, disbarred and prosecuted for subversion.  Anything less is to suborn lawlessness, and lawlessness by the government is — by definition — tyranny!

 

NOTICE: See how we were able to figure this out without the need for a single lawyer, Constitutional ‘expert’ or ‘authority’ of any type?  That is the way the Constitution was supposed to work, and that is the way it should still work.  Otherwise, if we need others to tell us what the Constitution means, then this is not a republic, nor is there is any principle of democracy in our government.  If we have to have authorities tell us what the law means, then we live under tyranny — plain and simple.  But one can only live under tyranny if one chooses to do so, and yes!  One has a choice!  There may be a high cost associated with that choice, but one most certainly has a choice in whether or not they will submit to other humans as their lords and masters.