Freedom Fighter Net

Interested in Metal Detecting?  Click here.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.  We seek not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House, August 1st, 1776

Freedom Fighter Net

Comments/intel to:  frdmftr AT frdmftr DOT net
Last updated January 4th, 2016
* Send email to be put on my free subscription list *
Refresh your browser and see if the date above changes.
Click here for the new stuff.


The American's Creed

DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won).  Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice.  Take no action and/or omit no action based on what you find here.  If you want or need legal advice, consult your own lawdog or legal beagle.  Don't believe anything the lawdog says, but get what your legal beagle says in writing.  Then you have grounds to act on it even if he's making it up as he goes along.

* * *

This is a Right to Keep and Bear Arms/Pro-Constitution website.

You cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.

Nor can you disarm a free people and expect them to remain free.

--Donald L. Cline


A federal government that does not derive every scintilla of its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition a rogue occupation government and criminal regime.  Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it.  See the Tenth Amendment.

A State government that exercises any power prohibited to it by the Constitution of the United States as amended is by definition a rogue occupation government and criminal regime.  It's authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey its prohibited color of law.  See the Tenth Amendment.

These are badges of responsible citizenship.

(Note that thugs in black robes sitting behind high benches typically do not believe in the U.S. Constitution and will rule against it and in favor of tyranny most foul.  Be careful, but keep fighting for liberty under the rule of law.)


“People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.'  Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.”
L. Neil Smith, “The Probability Broach”


A free citizenry does not ask its governments' permission to exercise a right.  It does not register its exercise of a right.  It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place.  It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed.  It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary.  In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern.  A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone.

--Donald L. Cline


The Uplifters Try It Again -- H. L. Mencken (1925)

Miscellaneous Links and Information

Return to Top



Background checks are a violation of the fundamental doctrine of liberty that no one may be compelled to waive a right as a precondition to receiving permission to exercise a right.  (And no one has the authority to issue or deny permission to exercise a right that does not interfere or infringe upon the free exercise of rights by others.)

  • Background Checks are ALSO a violation of our 10th Amendment right to State governments exercising ONLY those powers NOT PROHIBITED TO THE STATES by the U.S. Constitution. (States have the Police Power authority to regulate the USE of arms:  I.e., where, when, under what parameters of safety, defining self-defense, etc., but States DO NOT have the authority to regulate, oversee, monitor, or interfere in any way with the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms.)


Enforcing the U.S. Constitution is our defense:

Government has no authority to SUCKER people into waiving their rights.
Government has no authority to issue or deny permission to exercise a fundamental right.
It is time to say WE WILL NOT COMPLY!

Do we have a right to keep and bear arms?  Or do we have a privilege to keep and bear arms?

  • Rights are beyond the reach of government.
  • No one has to ask government for permission to exercise a right that does not interfere with anyone else’s right.
  • Privileges are issued or denied by government.
  • Privileges may be revoked by government.

Do we have a right to be secure from interrogation, search of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, and seizure of anything (including other rights) in the absence of a warrant founded on probable cause of criminal conduct?

The 4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.

Do we have a right to be secure from being deprived of our rights without due process by a Court of Criminal Law?

The 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.

Do we have a right to be secure from the federal exercise of power not delegated to the federal government from the Consent of the Governed (the U.S. Constitution), and the State exercise of power prohibited to the States by the U.S.Constitution?

The 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.

Then why do we allow the federal government to violate our 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights so it can issue or deny us permission to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights?  Why do we allow the federal government to even license firearm dealers?

We are sovereign citizens of the first nation in fifty centuries (in forever!) to establish the principle that private individual rights trump the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords and even majority rule by voter initiative.  If we want to restore our Constitutional Republic, take it away from this rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its Power from the Consent of the Governed (The U.S. Constitution), then we had better stop asking government permission to exercise our rights; we’d better stop the Bloomberg Universal Background Check Initiative, and we had better repeal The Brady Act of 1993, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the National Firearms Act of 1934.  There isn’t much time left to save our country.

[NOTE:  State governments* have the 'Police Power' to govern and regulate the USE of arms, i.e., when, where, under what parameters of safety, under what circumstances of self-defense, etc.  Contrary to even the legal authorities on our side, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, no government at any level, and no corporate entity created by government, and no private citizen who opens his business premises without caveat to the public for the purposes of commerce, has the lawful authority or right to deny the right to keep and bear arms for lawful and peaceful purpose.  The peaceful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not interfere with, and in most cases protects, the rights of other members of the public.]

*Not the federal government except on property ceded to the federal government and not open to the public. Only State governments have the State Police Power.

Return to Top


(Use back button to return)

Return to Top

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO) is a crackerjack pro-rights organization at, and you don't need to be Jewish to join.  I'm not, and I recommend supporting them with membership.  JPFO published my article below on 12JAN15:

Here is an important argument against “background checks” as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) “government permission” to exercise a right.  I’ve been posting this argument on every discussion board I can find, and I hope you will all forward it to your lists and either keep it on hand for when you encounter some doofus advocating background checks, or point me toward said doofus so I can present my argument to him (or her) directly.

First, it is not beyond the pale to consider background checks not only the death of our right to keep and bear arms; it is also the death of our Bill of Rights.  I’ll show you why.

Second, do you know the difference between a “right” and a “privilege”?  A right is something the citizen may exercise without government knowledge, consent, interference, or oversight.  It is beyond the lawful reach of government at any level.  A privilege, on the other hand, is something the citizen may do if government permits it, and if government permits it, government may revoke the permission at any time of its choosing, for any reason or no reason, and the citizen has nothing to say about it.  (Nothing binding, anyway.)  Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

We have a Constitutional Bill of Rights.  It’s not a bill of privileges, and it is not a bill of suggestions.  Any claim that the Bill of Rights only restrains the federal government, or only applies to the States if the Supreme Court says so, is a – pardon my vernacular – a crock of crap.  This kind of suggestion is borne of subversions introduced into our legal system before the ink was dry on the U.S. Constitution, and it is time we put a stop to them.  Some of those subversions were introduced “innocently” (in a sense) because, while our founders were brilliant men, the people around them were used to a feudal structure and not a liberty structure – they didn’t know how to deal with it, and they made mistakes because liberty scared them.  But truthfully, many, if not nearly all, were intentional subversions and actual insurrections against our Constitution and Bill of Rights because … well, the concept of citizen sovereignty over government is an abomination to certain very powerful people.  It sticks in their craw.  It is a direct attack on their core philosophy, and their core philosophy is that they are the rightful masters of humankind, and they intend to govern.  They are narcissists, and they cannot abide the fact that ordinary people have the right and the capability to say “Up yours!” and make it stick with force of arms if necessary.

Background checks:

Do you know of any other right that that requires a citizen to undergo a compelled interrogation under penalty of perjury as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise it?  Or a compelled search of his private papers and effects on government databases?
Look at the Bill of rights: Is there any right listed there that requires government permission to exercise?
Look at the U.S. Constitution: Is there any Article, Section, or Clause that authorizes government to issue or deny permission to exercise any of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights?


Fourth Amendment:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The purchase of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct and the purchaser is a person.  By what authority does the federal government compel an interrogation under penalty of perjury as a precondition to issuing or denying permission it does not have the authority to issue or deny?

Important:  Are you willing to waive your guaranteed right against warrantless search and seizure in exchange for government permission to exercise a right government has no authority to require?

Fifth Amendment (in pertinent part):  “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …”

Compelling an interrogation under penalty of perjury – that’s a threat of criminal sanction – and a search as a precondition to issuing or denying permission to purchase a firearm is not due process and the purchaser is a person.

Are you willing to give up your guaranteed right to be secure from being deprived of your life, liberty, or property without due process in exchange for government permission to exercise a right government has no authority to require?

Tenth Amendment:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Can you cite any Article, Section, or Clause of the U.S. Constitution authorizing the federal government to even license firearm dealers?  How about any authority to violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendment as a precondition to allowing a citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutionally-guaranteed right?  Putting a finer Constitutional point on it, where is the authority delegated to the federal government to even take notice of a private citizen’s purchase of a firearm?  Or to oversee, monitor, database, infringe upon the right, or interfere with the purchase or sale in any way?

Second Amendment (in pertinent part):*  “… (T)he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  (Period.  Full-stop.  End of story.)

Subversive Constitutional insurrectionist Michael Bloomberg and a couple of his wealthy cronies like Bill Gates spent close to 10 million dollars suckering the citizens of Washington State into passing a voter initiative requiring that every transfer of a firearm, even a temporary one for purposes of inspection or training at a range, be preconditioned by a background check conducted through a firearm dealer.  Does a State have the lawful power to violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments, and impose an a priori restraint on the Second, just because a bunch of voter said so?  (Hint: Read the prohibition clause of the Tenth Amendment.)

No, States are prohibited that authority, and the voting majority doesn’t have the authority to overcome that prohibition.  We do not live in a democracy, folks, we live in a Constitutional Republic in which no one, private citizens or government functionaries, have the lawful power to deprive anyone of their fundamental guaranteed rights.**

Bloomberg and his cronies now have their sights set on Nevada, and Arizona, and Maine.  Their success in Washington and in those other States will determine whether they destroy our Bill of Rights in the rest of the country or not.

In conclusion, let me point out that background checks have never prevented the criminal misuse of firearms in the history of the planet, and they were never intended to.  The backers of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 knew background checks would never accomplish that stated goal, but they knew it would eventually accomplish something very dear to their hearts:  Rendering the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and ultimately the Second, Amendments irrelevant.

If you have any desire to see America be restored to a nation founded and perpetuated on principles of personal liberty under the rule of law, do not, ever, vote for any law compelling a background check as a precondition to exercising any right, and let’s mount an effort to repeal the unconstitutional Brady handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and do away with government licensing of gun dealers and background checks.  Then we can repeal the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968 that made the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (and now Explosives) the most powerful gun control tyrants in the history of the planet.

*I did not quote the preamble to the Second Amendment, which says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” because the founders and the Supreme Court have both made it clear that while the preamble gives the reason for the right, the operative clause I quoted is not in any way limited by the preamble.  The people have the right to keep and bear arms.  (We also have a right to a Constitutional militia of the people, but that is a different, though closely-related, issue.)

**States do have, under the Police Power, the authority to regulate the USE of arms, i.e., where, when, under what safety rules, etc., but the Second Amendment prohibits exercise of any State power to infringe or interfere in any way with the right to keep and bear arms.

Comments and discussion are welcome, and if you know of a website or individual or media outlet who needs this information, feel free to pass it on to them without alteration, and attributed to me as follows:

You cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.
Nor can you disarm a free people and expect them to remain free.
--Donald L. Cline
frdmftr AT frdmftr DOT net

Return to Top


The Form 4473 mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 is an interrogation under penalty of perjury and a search of the person prohibited by the Fourth Amendment in the absence of probable cause of a crime having been committed and probable cause that the purchaser of a firearm committed the crime.

The NICS check that follows is a search of the papers and effects of the purchaser on public file and is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment in the absence of probable cause of a crime having been committed and probable cause that the purchaser of a firearm committed the crime.

Both are a deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms of the purchaser of the firearm all in violation of the purchaser's Fifth Amendment right to due process:  Purchasing a firearm is not a crime and is not probable cause of a crime.  Keeping and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege requiring permission from government.

The Form 4473 and the NICS check are violations of the Tenth Amendment prohibition against the federal government's exercise of powers not Constitutionally delegated, and/or a violation of the Tenth Amendment prohibition against the exercise of State power Constitutionally prohibited (in this case by the Second Amendment).

Now very wealthy subversives -- who by their actions may be described as enemy agents and insurrectionists against the Constitution of the United States -- have mounted a campaign to extend the illegal and unConstitutional background check requirement of GCA'68 to a universal tyranny imposed on every transfer of a firearm between any two people, even a temporary transfer for demonstration purposes.

If this campaign is not stopped, it will set a legal precedent that our Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, our Fifth Amendment right to due process, and our Tenth Amendment right to all powers not delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the States will be mere "suggestions," overcome at any time by a government claim of "compelling interest."

Government's only compelling interest is to protect the rights of the citizen.  It has no other lawful purpose.  Anyone who votes or supports any law depriving the people of their rights described above or any rights our Constitution and our nation is established to preserve and protect, is at the very least what Marxist V. I. Lenin called his "useful idiots," and at the worst an enemy agent and apparatchik of insurrection guilty of treason by Constitutional definition.

Return to Top

By releasing five of the most accomplished and dangerous generals of the Taliban the president has adhered to the declared enemies of the united states and given them material aid and comfort in their levying war on these united states, all as defined by the U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 as treason.

The president has committed Treason Most Foul.

Congress bitching and moaning about how he broke the law by not consulting with congress is nothing but a cynical attempt to deflect focus from the reality of his Treason.  Whenever possible, Congress likes to spin its wheels in useless hearings and pontifications instead of doing what needs to be done.  He did not merely 'break the law;' he committed Treason.

It is time to draw up articles of impeachment for treason right now before he does any more damage.

--Donald L. Cline

(Posted 12JUN14 to every member of the Marxist Mafia in Congress, to my national list, and to a number of print and digital newspapers and blogs.)

Return to Top

  1. The United States of America was founded on the principle that individual inherited and unalienable rights trump arbitrary government authority, and that the single, absolutely only and exclusive purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual citizen:  "Liberty under the rule of law."  See Declaration of Independence, second paragraph; "To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, ..."

  2. The United States Constitution as lawfully amended* is "the Rule of Law."

  3. No legislation is required to put the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution into effect.  Legislation, enforcement, and adjudication are necessary only to sanction criminal acts by citizens and government officials for violation of individual rights.

  4. Neither the federal government, nor any State or local government, has the lawful authority to infringe upon, regulate, or in any way interfere with the right of any citizen to keep and bear the arms of the typical well-equipped infantryman.

  5. Background checks compelled in the absence of probable cause of wrong-doing as a pre-condition to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms constitutes a warrantless search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and a violation of due process prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

  6. No one, private citizen, corporate officer, or government official, has the authority to prohibit the non-disruptive exercise of the right to keep and bear arms on premises open to the public for commerce or other lawful purpose.

  7. A United States federal Government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from the limited powers delegated to it by the Consent of the Governed conveyed by the Constitution of the United States is by definition a rogue occupation government and no one may be lawfully bound to obey it.

*"(L)awfully amended":  I.e., amended pursuant to Article V, United States Constitution.  Examples:  Neither the 16th nor the 17th Amendment were ratified pursuant to Article V:  The 16th because several States re-wrote it and ratified something not proposed:  See The Law That Never Was" by Red Beckman and Bill Benson, containing certified copies of the legislative records of the States purportedly ratifying it.  The 17th because Article V specifically prohibits any amendment depriving the States of their suffrage without their Consent:  Ten States withheld their Consent.

Proof of the above Premises:

All Citations below refer to the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Article VI Clause 3 in pertinent part.  (Emphasis added.)

Thus both federal government officers and agents and State government officers and agents are bound by oath or affirmation to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution of the United States in all legislation, enforcement, and adjudication.  Violation of an oath or affirmation is called "Perjury."

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof*; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,*, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI Clause 2.  (Emphasis added.)
*Laws not legislated pursuant to the specific limited delegated authorities conveyed by the U.S. Constitution, and treaties which require legislation not pursuant to those authorities, are neither "in Pursuance thereof" nor "under the Authority of the United States," and are therefore but mere color of law, null and void from the moment of their inception, and without lawful substance or binding authority on anyone.

Thus State judiciaries, and by extension, State governments, are bound by the rule of law to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution of the United States in all matters in controversy.  This applies to all levels of State judiciary, from traffic, municipal, and administrative Courts to appellate and supreme Courts.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment X.  (Emphasis added.)

The federal government of the United States is not delegated the authority (subject matter jurisdiction) over any matter or controversy having anything whatever to do with the right of any private citizen to acquire, purchase, obtain, keep, or bear a firearm.  The federal government does not even have the authority to regulate, permit, deny, or control the use of a firearm on property not under the direct regulatory control of the federal government.  There is no federal authority to legislate the issue, enforce the issue, or adjudicate the issue beyond the judicial authority to protect the right of the individual citizen, pursuant to the aforementioned Rule of Law, to keep and bear arms by enforcing the terms and limitations of delegated powers conveyed by the United States Constitution.

All branches of the federal government and State governments, and in particular State judiciaries, are bound both by the Constitutional rule of law and their oaths or affirmations of office to regard the U.S. Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.  Pursuant to Article V, that includes the Tenth Amendment cited above.

While the States have the Police Power not available to the federal government, the power to legislate, enforce, or adjudicate against the right of the people, or any individual citizen, to keep and bear arms is prohibited to the States:

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.
Amendment II.  (Emphasis added.)
Thus States, and their municipal subdivisions under their State Constitutional authority, are prohibited the power to infringe, regulate, deny, permit, or control the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms.

Thus the federal government has no lawful power to infringe, regulate, deny, permit, or control the right of any citizen to keep and bear arms, and the State governments are prohibited the power to infringe, regulate, deny, permit, or control the right of any citizen to keep and bear arms.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV.  Emphasis added.
A background check compelled as a pre-condition to the exercise of any right, including the right to keep and bear arms, is a search and a seizure of information which, in the absence of a warrant based upon probable cause, is an unreasonable violation of the citizen￿s right to privacy in the exercise of his rights and in his person, papers, and effects, if not his house.  This is particularly true when the purpose of the search and seizure of information is to evaluate whether or not to issue permission to exercise a right the issuer has no lawful authority to issue or deny.

Moreover, it is an egregious violation of the legal doctrine that no person may be required to waive any right, such as the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, as a pre-condition to obtaining permission to exercise any right, such as his right to keep and bear arms.

Moreover still, the aforementioned background check is an egregious violation of the doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, for the federal government is delegated no authority to issue or deny permission to exercise any right, including the right to keep and bear arms, the purchase of which is a fundamental element of the right.

No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...
Amendment V in pertinent part.
A background check compelled as a pre-condition to the purchase of a firearm is a violation of the citizen's liberty to exercise his fundamental, inherited, unalienable rights without government oversight, permission, or interference; a violation of the citizen's right to acquire and hold property, and may be, if the purchase is for defensive purposes, a violation of the citizen's right to life.

The background check is also a violation of the citizen's right to a federal government that is bound by the limited delegated Consent of the Governed.

Crimes are violations of rights and violations of rights are crimes:

Assault, murder, rape, theft, false imprisonment, and other crimes are crimes because they violate the fundamental rights of the victim.  The right to keep and bear arms is no less a fundamental right, and its deprivation, prohibition, or confiscation is a crime no less serious.  Under our Constitutional form of republican government there can be no law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.  The perpetrators of the crime of depriving citizens of their right to keep and bear arms under color of law should be treated no differently than any other criminal marauder, up to and including facing the gallows.


As proven above, no government, no corporation, no private citizen, has the lawful authority to deprive any citizen of the lawful exercise of his fundamental right to keep and bear arms on premises open to the public or any premises where citizens and/or members of the public have a right to be, any more than government, corporations, or private citizens have a right to commit assault, murder, rape, robbery, or theft.

The United States Constitution created the federal government of the United States and conveyed to it the limited Consent of the Governed to govern exclusively pursuant to its specific delegated authorities.  A federal government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from those delegated is by definition a rogue occupation government no one may be lawfully bound to obey, and which the people are duty-bound to abolish.  Where individual rights are concerned, State governments are no less bound.

Based upon the fundamental Constitutional rule of law set forth above, the people have a perfect inherited and unalienable right to declare "We have not conveyed our Consent to this authority and we will not comply!"

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.
Texas Court Decision: Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Return to Top

I have never met a pro-active gun-banner yet who didn't harbor a secret desire to beat someone senseless with their fists and their feet, or perhaps with a baseball bat, for being ...  "difficult".  For not doing as they are told.  For not agreeing with whatever nonsense they wish to blather.  For not worshipping the ground they walk on.

Gun-banners hate gun owners because gun owners don't have to put up with their crap.  It must be terribly frustrating, poor things. 

Smiley--Donald L. Cline                                                                           

Return to Top

OKAY!  The video is back:

A five-minute video that reveals why it is absolutely vital that we not give up our right to keep and bear arms to Obama, to Congress, to any government agency or agent, ever.  This video is produced by Matthew Bracken and Mark P. Ferri.  Matthew Bracken is the author of the "ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC" trilogy which I consider to be among the best examples of the dangers inherent in over-reaching government in current print.  The third book in the trilogy, "FOREIGN ENEMIES AND TRAITORS" is astonishing for its prescience:  Published one year after the illegal Marxist twerp calling himself "Obama" infested our White House, and without mentioning Obama or any other current events (well, you can see similarities of effort) it describes exactly what we can expect will be the near future results of Obama's "fundamental transformation of America."  Read it and prepare.  Available on Kindle and in full-sized soft-cover from or autographed by Matt direct from his website at for $22, shipping included.

I also strongly recommend Matt's Essays at Essays and Links; especially What I saw At The Coup and When The Music Stops:  How The Cities May Explode In Violence.  You may find the others equally interesting.

NOTE:  The above website information may or may not change; Matt has announced he is preparing his escape pod (sailboat) for departure.

Return to Top

This information is dangerous to the established Powers That Be.  It has all been tested in Court before incompetent or corrupt (or both) judges, some of whom I have personally observed counseling the government on how to proceed in their prosecution.  People have lost their liberty, their property, their marriages, their families, and their lives for attempting to bring government to heel using this information.  I do not advocate taking any of this information to Court; the price is too high and the success rate is too low (I think it is too late anyway).  This information is presented exclusively so the reader will learn how we got to the Second Bolshevik Insurrection, who did it to us, who is getting paid, and who is about to pull the switch and take it to the next level.)

Note:  It is vitally important to note the word "insurrection" above.  This is a Marxist Second Bolshevik Insurrection, not "Revolution."  They have to have a majority of the people behind them to call this a Revolution, and they don't.  Likewise, we would have to have a majority of the people behind us to legally revolt against this rogue occupation government.  HOWEVER, We, the People, most certainly do have the lawful authority, through our representatives, to put down this unlawful insurrection against our Constitution -- and we have the right to fire our representatives and elect new ones, officially or unofficially, if they refuse.  That makes us counter-revolutionaries.  Words mean things, and words have consequences:  We need to do this right and record this right for the sake of our posterity.

July 4th, 1776
Declaration of Independence drafted unanimously by the 13 Colonies.  "When in the Course of human Events, ..."  Please read and note the similarities between what the founders experienced and what we are experiencing today.

1781:  Articles of Confederation ratified by the 13 Colonies.  The War for Independence proceeds in fits and starts:  "(The Revolutionary War) began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the newly formed United States, France, Netherlands, Spain, and Mysore on the other.  American independence was achieved and European powers recognized the independence of the United States, with mixed results for the other nations involved."  For greater detail, see Wickipedia article.

Be aware of this little-known perspective:  At the time of our War for Independence, the so-called "British Empire" was and remains to this day a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City of London banking cartels who ran the world's commerce for hundreds of years before North America was discovered.  The banking cartels were dominated at that time by the Rothschild Banking Family, and the British House of Lords was and is today infested with a majority of banking and business interests holding aristocratic titles for the same reason our banking and business interests are incorporated for purposes of "limited liability":  I.e., they are not individually accountable for the decisions they make in the name of their corporation, so long as those decisions are deemed to be "in the public interest."  Who defines "the public interest"?  Why, government, of course -- which is totally controlled by those feudal and corporate officers.

1783THE TREATY OF PARIS concluded The Revolutionary War.

1787:  Constitution Convention convened.  On the eve of the Convention, George Washington wrote these dismal words to James Madison:

"The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion."

The deliberate purpose of the 1787 Constitutional Convention was to stop the ravages of a fluctuating medium of exchange by obligating government to maintain a reliable medium of exchange.  President Andrew Jackson validated this fact in his Eight Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1836, just 47 years after the Constitution was ratified by the States:

"...It was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals.  These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency."

"Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."
--Peletiah Webster, 1789
From the preface to "A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE" by Roger Sherman, the only man to have
signed all four of the documents illustrative of and establishing the United States of America,
as reprinted by F. Tupper Saussy in 1982.

1791:  Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton proposed creation of the "Bank of the United States", arguing that "The tendency of a national bank is to increase public and private credit.  The former gives power to the state for the protection of its rights and interests, and the latter facilitates and extends the operations of commerce amongst individuals."  --Alexander Hamilton, December, 1790 report to George Washington.  After considerable skeptical reflection, George Washington signed the legislation.

1811:  The twenty-year charter of the Bank of the United States expires.  Stephen Girard purchases all lock, stock, and property interest in the now-defunct Bank of the United States and opens his own private bank with himself being the sole proprietor, thus escaping the Pennsylvania laws prohibiting any association of persons from opening a bank.

1812-1815:  The "War of 1812," referred to by some historians as the "Second War for Independence," went hot the following year, as a result of British blockading the Atlantic Coast, impressment of American sailors from vessels captured at sea to serve in the Napoleonic Wars, and was generally an attempt by the owners of Great Britain to recover their colonies.  The attempt fizzled badly, and while it tied up a few loose ends left over from the War for Independence, the land areas all went back to their previous borders.  It was during this debacle that the first "Income Tax" was proposed by Congress, but the Treaty of Ghent was signed before it could be imposed.

Preface to the following:

"The Big Bankers in Europe -- the Rothschilds and their cohorts -- viewed the wonderful results borne by this unique experiment from an entirely different perspective; they looked upon it as a major threat to their future plans.  The establishment Times of London stated:  'If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [i.e. honest Constitutionally-authorized no-debt money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost.  It will pay off its debts and be without a debt [to the international bankers].  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world.  The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America.  That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.'

"The Rothschilds and their friends sent in their financial termites to destroy America because it was becoming 'prosperous beyond precedent.' "The first documentable evidence of Rothschild involvement in the financial affairs of the United States came in the late 1820s and early 1830s when the family, through their agent Nicholas Biddie, fought to defeat Andrew Jackson's move to curtail the international bankers.  The Rothschilds lost the first round when in 1832, President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the 'Bank of the United States' (a central bank controlled by the international bankers). In 1836 the bank went out of business."  See Daily Paul.

1832:  You bet he did!:

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States.  I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.  When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank.  You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.  That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin!  Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!  You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!"  --Andrew Jackson, as quoted in Andrew Jackson Wikiquotes.

It was around this time frame or shortly after that a letter from the Rothschild Banking Cartel addressed to its "Imperial Managers in the United States" counseled patience, for it predicted full economic control of "their colonies" would be regained by the year 1900, and political control by the year 2000.  There was a suggestion that "full payback in fealty would then commence."

1835:  A mentally-ill housepainter tried to kill Andrew Jackson at point-blank range, but both pistols misfired and Jackson beat him severely with his cane.  Of course this was not a false-flag event.  Also,

"The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents.  These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States.  Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860.  Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President."  See Daily Paul.

1848-1855:  The California Gold Rush began with the finding of gold at Sutter's Mill, precipitating a major expansion of population to the West from the east, and from overseas.  This resulted in San Francisco increasing its population from 200 to about 36,000, and California becoming a State in 1850.

1861-1865:  The Civil War cost 600,000 lives.  The South believed Britain would come to its aid due to British dependence on "King Cotton" grown in the South, but the "British agents" were more likely employed by the Rothschilds, not the British government.  They weren't there to help the South; they were there to de-stabilize the United States.  Britain didn't show up for the party, and the South lost.  The first "Personal Income Tax" was imposed in 1861 to pay for the war (3% of all incomes over US$800), but was repealed and replaced with another in 1862.

1894Democrats passed the first peacetime personal income tax, 2% on incomes over $4,000, which meant that fewer than 10% of all households would pay any.

1895:  In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) the Supreme Court ruled the personal income tax was unconstitutional.  The ruling also defined "direct tax" as a tax that could not be shoved off on anyone else.

US Constitution Article I Section 9 Clause 4 requires that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Cenusus or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
NOTE a significant fact:  Pollock was a private citizen, not a corporation or a business, and as such could not shove a tax off on anyone else.  Further:

"Direct taxes include those assessed upon property, person, business, income, etc., of those who pay them; while indirect taxes are levied upon commodities before they reach the consumer, and are paid by those upon whom they ultimately fall, not as taxes, but as part of the market price of the commodity.  Under the second head may be classed the duties upon imports, and the excise and stamp duties levied upon manufactures; Cooley, Taxation 10.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pgs 867-868.

1913:  In the waning hours of the eve of the Christmas Break, December 23rd, 1913, after most of the opposition had gone home, and without a quorum, the U.S. Senate voted to pass the so-called "Federal Reserve Act."  The vote was null and void for want of a quorum, and the Act is unConstitutional anyway, for no power is delegated to the United States government to divest itself of its Constitutional authority (in pertinent part) "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ..."

In the interest of full disclosure, the very Progressive (read far-left Socialist/Marxist) Political Research Associates assert the above claim of null and void is "the silliest of the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories" because yeah, they didn't have a quorum, but those who had left registered their approval on the Record (Before?  After?) and even if they had been there, they would have voted to pass it.

Yeah, but they didn't vote to pass it. They weren't there; the Senate didn't have a quorum; the vote was illegal and the Act is null and void.  This is typical Marxist political playbook:  They broke the rules, but it advances the Marxist agenda to say "Move along; move along; there's nothing to see here."  The Marxist playbook must be challenged every time it is invoked.  It must never be allowed to stand.

Also in 1913, the Sixteenth (Income Tax) Amendment and the Seventeenth (Senators by popular vote) Amendments were declared ratified when they weren't.

The Sixteenth Amendment purportedly permitted government to impose a Capitation, or direct Tax, upon the citizens in direct violation of Article I Section 9 Clause 4:

  • According to all the expressed intent of the legislators of the time, the Sixteenth Amendment was never intended to impose a direct Tax on private citizens in violation of Article I Section 9 Clause 4 (See above).  It was intended exclusively to tax corporations as an excise tax on the profit the corporation derived from the employment of labor.  This meant it could have been Constitutional in the first place if it had been written as an excise tax instead of an income tax, since the corporation could shove it off on the employee as a condition of employment.  As will be seen, it was never the purpose to impose a tax on corporations; nor was it the purpose to support government.

  • No private citizen was taxed on his wages for 25 years, and when the first citizens were taxed, it was because they were government employees and therefore enjoyed the "privilege" of immunity for the decisions and enforcements they imposed on other citizens in the name of government.

  • The Supreme Court has ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment created "no new tax" because government already had the authority to impose an excise tax (true, so long as the tax was imposed on the exercise of privilege by a corporation or business), and because the Court claimed all the Sixteenth Amendment did was remove the requirement of apportionment from direct Taxation.  (Do I have to point out the award for mealy-mouthing in this ruling?  If a direct Tax was prohibited for 126 years unless apportioned, and now it can be imposed without regard to apportionment, then it's a new tax!)

  • Guess what:  The Sixteenth Amendment is null and void anyway; it was not ratified by three-fourths of the States as required by Article V:  Several States re-wrote it first and then ratified something not proposed, which no other States ratified.  Kentucky even voted it down and then listed the legislation as "carried" in its legislative record.  See The Law That Never Was, a two volume reference book and/or CD's available from Bill Benson's site or from the reference section of your public library -- if it hasn't been confiscated.  It contained certified copies of the legislative records of all the States the Secretary of State claimed ratified the amendment.

  • The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is not to support the federal government.  It was declared ratified when it had not been ratified because the banking cartel agents knew the gold and silver coin would be removed from our Constitutional monetary system in a few years, and it would be necessary at that time to pull a percentage of the worthless fiat paper money out of circulation every time it changed hands in order to mask the inflation unlimited printing of money would cause.  The government borrows money from the FED and the FED causes it to be created out of nothing and loaned to the U.S. government with our property and the government's taxing power used as collateral.

  • The bankers have just about reached their endgame:  If the Marxist Mafia infesting the White House and most of the U.S. Senate and almost half of the U.S. House can keep on borrowing, the United States of America will go bankrupt and the House of Cards will collapse.  That is the objective of all the entitlement spending and ObamaCare and anything else they can throw into the mix to put our businesses out of business and make our very survival depend upon the beneficience of a bunch of Marxist apparatchiks.
The Seventeeth Amendment purportedly removed the choosing of U.S. Senators from the States as a separate entity from the people, and authorized their election by popular vote, the same as for Members of the House of Representatives:

  • The main original purpose of having Congressmen elected by the people and Senators chosen by the State legislatures, according to the founding father's writings in the Federalist Papers, was to insulate Senators from the influences of factionalism, to secure them from the temptations of campaign fund donations, and to allow them the time and quiet contemplation necessary to determine whether a bill before them was in the best interests of the nation and their State.

  • A secondary purpose in having the State legislatures choose U.S. Senators was to give the States standing in federal courts against the federal government, and to give the State legislatures the authority to recall their U.S. Senator for conduct not in the best interests of the State.

  • These purposes were and are so important that Article V of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any amendment from depriving any State of its suffrage in the Senate without its Consent:

    "... Provided ... that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."  --Article V.
  • When the Seventeenth Amendment was declared ratified by lying Progressive Democrat William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, ten States had not given Consent to being deprived of their Suffrage in the Senate:  Utah and Delaware withheld their Consent to being deprived of their Suffrage in the Senate by voting to reject the proposed Seventeenth Amendment, and eight other States withheld their Consent by taking no action at all on the proposed Seventeenth Amendment.

  • Do I have to point out that since the Seventeenth Amendment was declared ratified when it had not been ratified, that not one single federal law has been passed?  That not one single Cabinet Level appointment has been ratified by a Constitutional Senate?  That not one Treaty has been ratified by a Constitutional Senate?  That not one Supreme Court Justice has been ratified by a Constitutional Senate?  That not one President has been lawfully sworn in by a Constitutionally ratified Supreme Court Justice?  That not one Declaration of War has been lawfully passed by Congress?

  • Can you say "Rogue Occupation Government"?  Given everything else this federal government has been doing in the last one hundred years it is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do, can you add "and criminal regime" to that appellation?

  • Article I Section 10 Clause 1:  "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ..."
    Explanation: "Tender in payment of debts" is a legal term.  If you perform a contract and someone tries to pay you in kumquats, you are not required to accept payment in kumquats.  You may sue your debtor for payment in legal Tender, and the State Courts are required to rule that you must be paid in legal Tender.  Worthless paper fiat I.O.U.'s, called Federal Reserve Notes, are not legal tender either; the Constitution requires gold and silver Coin to be legal Tender.  By removing the lawful power of the States to choose their Senators, the States were deprived of their enforceable legal standing in federal Courts.  As a result, the States could not file suit in federal Court requiring the federal government to Coin Money as required by the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government was free to pass illegal color of law with impunity making these worthless fiat I.O.U. notes legal Tender.

When I get a chance, I will finish this timeline -- If the Marxist Mafia currently infesting the White House and the U.S. Senate and much of the House of Representatives doesn't take their Second Bolshevik Revolution to the next level, the shooting level, before then.

Return to Top


With this posting I am proposing a simple, potentially very effective process whereby the illegal, unconstitutional activities of the federal government can be called to question and the government can be brought to heel ￿ hopefully peacefully.  If not peacefully, then at least it won￿t be the people starting the ruckus.

I have said from the beginning that any conflict with the federal government is a lost cause if the States do not participate on the side of the U.S. Constitution.  Yet the powers that be presume the States have little to say in any conflict with the federal government because the States no longer have any real, binding standing to challenge the federal government:  This because the 17th Amendment has removed the representation of the States in the U.S. Senate, and turned that representation over to the people.  This makes the U.S. Senate just another House of Representatives, and subject to all the evils of factionalism and mass media propaganda to which that body is subject.  It also means it is almost impossible to recall or impeach a sitting U.S. Senator, whereas before the State authorities could recall a Senator any time they wished.

Thus the States are mere catspaws of the federal government any time the feds want to throw their weight around and threaten to withhold funds.

Yet, under the principle of federalism, the powers of governance are shared between the States and the federal government, and this principle is established by the Constitution of the United States:  The people will be represented in Congress by representatives in the House of Representatives chosen by vote of the people (Article I Section 2).  The States, each as a separate and distinct entity from the people, and with separate and overlapping interests ￿ self-interest as governing bodies but with overarching interest in protecting the rights of its citizens ￿ are to be represented in the U.S. Senate (Article I Section 3).

This was illegally and improperly and most importantly, unconstitutionally changed in 1913:  The banking entities managed to get a charter through Congress, in the last closing hours of the session when most Senators and Representatives had gone home for the Christmas Break, to create a national banking system in the United States controlled by the European banking dynasties.  (These were the same banking dynasties whose control we fought off in the War for Independence, but that is a different thread.)  At the same time they created the private corporation calling itself the ￿Federal Reserve System,￿ they proposed the 16th and 17th Amendments:

The proposed 16th Amendment is the income tax amendment, proposed because they knew they were going to confiscate our gold and silver monetary system and sell us worthless debt to use for currency instead of wealth, and they needed to drag a percentage of that worthless fiat paper out of circulation every time it changed hands or the inflation it caused would be noticeable overnight and the people would rebel.  The 16th was not ratified because a number of States re-wrote it first and ￿ratified￿ something that had not been proposed.  See ￿The Law That Never Was￿ by Red Beckman and Bill Benson, available in the reference section of your county library.  It contains certified copies of the legislative records of the States purportedly ratifying.

The proposed 17th Amendment is the amendment that takes the choosing of U.S. Senators away from the States and gives it to the people, making the U.S. Senate another House of Representatives.  This was proposed because Article I Section 10 Clause 1 provides that ￿No State shall ￿ make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ￿￿ and they didn￿t want the States claiming the worthless fiat currency was illegal.  They also promised the States they would receive largesse from the federal Treasury (also unconstitutional) if they would keep quiet about it.  The 17th Amendment was also not ratified because Article V specifically prohibits any such amendment unless every State agrees:  In stating the manner in which amendments shall be valid, Article V states:  ￿￿ Provided ￿ that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived its equal Suffrage in the Senate.￿  Utah and Delaware withheld their Consent by voting to reject the proposed 17th Amendment, and eight other States withheld their Consent by taking no action at all on the 17th Amendment.

Neither of these amendments were ratified, and the United States government has been enforcing a lie for one hundred years.  It is time for this tyranny to stop.

My proposal to peacefully and legally Call The Question is based on the proposed and unratified 17th Amendment.  If the 17th Amendment was not ratified, and it clearly was not, then it does not exist.  It is null and void from the moment of its inception and not merely from the moment of its discovery as deficient.  The States still have the Constitutional authority to choose their U.S. Senators (Article I Section 3).

I do not propose State governments declare the 17th Amendment unratified, and I oppose any such declaration:  The 17th Amendment is unratified as a matter of fact and law.  ￿Declaring￿ it so invites legal challenge to the declaration.  Rather, I propose States simply recognize by its own legislation that the 17th Amendment was never ratified as required by Article V of the United States Constitution and immediately choose new U.S. Senators in a manner authorized by State legislation and send them to Washington.  Their existing (non-)Senators can be recalled to a hearing where they are stripped of their certification without prejudice (i.e., making it clear none of this is their fault), or ￿discharged￿ by whatever means the State chooses.  They can even campaign to be chosen by the State as Senators replacing themselves, if they wish.

The point is, none of this requires permission from the federal government.  All of this is existing State authority under the United States Constitution and no one, much less the feds, has any right to challenge it.

Once States￿ rights are thus restored, the States can take whatever steps are necessary to restore a constitutional federal government ￿ including rescinding 100 years of unratified amendments, unConstitutional federal law, and judicial rulings founded on unConstitutional federal law.  Oh, what opportunities to challenge worthless fiat currency and other tyrannies this procedure offers!

--Donald L. Cline

(This treatise was posted to my national list Sunday, July 21st, 2013.)

Return to Top

The following article is another peaceful but very effective Resistance Operation against this rogue occupation government, with credit to John Wesley, Rawles, of  Updated with citations at Survivalblog/Nunc Pro Tunc.

Nunc Pro Tunc: The Coming Day of Burn Barrels and Blessings

This is a standing invitation to my fellow Americans:  If congress ever enacts a law mandating the registration and/or a production ban of detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles then you are hereby invited to the town square of your local community.  There, burn barrels will be set up and we will publicly burn Form 4473s, FFL Bound Books, state and local registration records, and the sales receipts for every firearm in the United States.  On that same day, FFL holders and public officials holding electronic firearms records will simultaneously erase those records, permanently and irretrievably.  (Using special file erasure software such as Blancco, X-Ways, and Stellar Wipe, or though the physical destruction of disk drives.)

Spontaneous Gatherings, Spontaneous Combustion

This burn barrel day--likely to be held the day after the President signs any new draconian legislation--will include speeches, public prayers, and the blessing of those who have gathered by ministers, rabbis, and priests.

The core of the activities on that day will be stalwart public defiance of any new unconstitutional law(s), the open and notorious destruction of records that might be used to enslave us, and vocal public affirmations of solidarity of free men and women, in the face of tyranny.  This will be a defining moment for America--a line drawn in the sand.  We will forthrightly declare that we will not obey any unconstitutional law and that we will treat it dismissively, as if it had never been enacted -- nunc pro tunc.  We will pledge ourselves to the defense of liberty, both individually and collectively.  We will vow that if ever called to jury duty, we will nullify any unconstitutional laws, vacating the charges against the accused, in accordance with our long-standing right as jurors.  (See:

The Law is On Our Side

We will publicly re-affirm some long standing precepts of American jurisprudence, to wit:

"The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...

"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 Never Again!

Recognizing the many sad lessons of civilian disarmament and subsequent genocides in the 20th Century, we will make bold and forthright statement:  Never Again!  We will not submit to the unlawful decrees of tyrants.  We will not meekly go their jails and internment camps.  We will fight for our liberty, to our dying breath.

Come Armed, Come Masked

I recommend that all adults who publicly assemble at these burn barrel events do so armed, as is our right.  And those who come armed should also wear masks, to protect themselves from malicious prosecution.  I plan to wear a Guy Fawkes mask, but you can wear a bandana, face muffler, or the face mask of your choice.  Joining you, also wearing masks, will be many mayors, sheriffs and their deputies, chiefs of police and their officers, town council members, clergy, and people of all walks of life.  We vastly outnumber the tyrants.  The tyrants deserve nothing but our scorn and derision.  Their fate is already sealed.

Plausible Denial

After this fateful day has come and gone, FFL holders and public officials will be able to recount:  "I had no choice.  My records were taken by men with guns who were wearing masks!"  (So they'll have no excuse if they don't cooperate with this nationwide display of civil disobedience.)

God Bless The Republic. Down with Tyrants. We Will Prevail!

- James Wesley, Rawles - January 28, 2013

Note:  Permission to reprint or re-post this piece in full by any method (printed or electronically) is granted by the author (James Wesley, Rawles), as a long as it is not altered in any way and it is reproduced in full.

Return to Top


The United States Constitution is not dead.

The United States Constitution is in full force and effect.

It exists:  It cannot be lawfully circumvented; it cannot be abrogated; it cannot be waived; it cannot be dissolved; it exists and it is supreme Law of the Land.

The United States Constitution conveys to the government of the United States the only lawful authority it has.

Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President but not founded upon subject matter jurisdiction specifically conveyed by the United States Constitution is null and void from the moment of its inception, cannot be lawfully enforced, and is but mere color of law without lawful force or effect.

To the extent the federal government operates outside the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed by the United States Constitution, the federal government has forfeited its lawful right to govern and has become an Occupation Government without lawful authority.

To the extent any federal officer operates outside the lawful constraints and limitations of the United States Constitution, that officer and any officer who does his bidding has forfeited his lawful authority and is operating as a criminal marauder under color of law regardless of any legislation purportedly passed by Congress and signed into color of law by any President or ineligible usurper of the Office of President.

It is the responsibility of every federal officer to read, study, and understand the United States Constitution according to original intent and conduct his official activities accordingly, and that does not mean taking his supervisor's word for it.  He fails to do so at his legal peril:  "Es war meine Pflicht!"  ("It was my duty!") didn't cut it at Neuremberg and it won't cut it here.

(Note to freedom fighters:  While there are some federal officers with at least a modicum of integrity, federal thugs -- and especially Marxist federal thugs -- won't see it that way.  Be very, very careful.)

Return to Top


Don't ever, ever, allow anyone to convince you the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights is no more.  That is exactly what Obama and his creeps in the World Communist Union want you to believe.  It is impossible, flatly impossible, for the federal government to lawfully destroy the principles established by either founding document of our nation, or the Declaration of Independence that justified them.  To the extent that it tries to do so, it deprives itself of all lawful authority to govern and becomes an Occupation Government no one is bound to obey or even tolerate.  We are, indeed, rapidly being overtaken by an Occupation Government, but it is not happening because the people have volunteered into some bogus jurisdiction or by any other means having any legal substance whatever, and to the extent it enforces its fiats on the American people, it is doing so illegally at the point of a gun.  The good news is the Occupation Government doesn't have the gun it thinks it has, because the United States Military will not back it up.  The bottom line here is that we, the people, are defending the founding documents of our free nation founded upon principles of liberty, and that is what justifies the knock-down drag-out fight we face if we cannot peacefully restore lawful government.  Don't allow anyone to throw away that motivation and justification by claiming the Bill of Rights is no more or that the Constitution is dissolved and is dissolved perfectly, as the Marxists inside the Beltway have been saying behind closed doors for years.  There is a fight coming, and we must not give up our prize, the restoration of Constitutional government, before it even begins.

Return to Top


You want to know what it will be like living under the kind of government Obama is trying to ram down our throats?  Here is a description from someone who's been there, endured that:

(Thank you, Bob H., for researching and publishing this.)

Ayn Rand's HUAC Testimony
Sunday, October 19, 1947
By:  Ayn Rand
Click to see
A Transcript of her Full Testimony
then return here.

Now:  Doesn't that sound just lovely?

Return to Top


I am now going to point out a very harsh reality.  I don't like it; I don't like to say it; I don't even like to think about it.  But fundamentally, when push comes to shove, it is the only defense that works against entrenched totalitarianism:

Some time ago I watched a movie set in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, right at the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  There were two very compelling scenes in that movie, one in which totalitarianism wins and one in which it loses.  Note that in this description, every person is Jewish except those specifically identified as Nazi soldiers.

The first scene showed a children's costume ballet recital with parents sitting around the edge of the room.  Everything is proceeding nicely when some officious little Nazi maggot stomps in and announces that this is an unauthorized assembly and everyone is to go home immediately.  Everyone shrugs; the conductor makes an obscene gesture to the departing backside of the Nazi, and people start preparing to go home.  Now, I understand that this ballet scene is, besides an actual ballet school for little girls, a cover for the budding Resistance, so there is an argument in this case against doing immediate battle.  But absent that kind of side issue, there is only one way this kind of government thuggery is going to stop:  I'll put it less graphically than I could:  The little Nazi S.O.B. must be later found in a gutter with a bullet between the eyes.  That should be the signature of the Resistance whenever it can be arranged.  If not, it might be better if he just disappears, never to be seen again.

The second scene was an excellent example of what it takes to stop this kind of government thuggery, and it has to be done every single time it can be pulled off successfully without endangering your own people:  A Nazi officer, with a half a bottle of Schnapps in him and a couple of armed soldiers hanging around offering immoral support, accosts an old man in the street, a musician, and orders him to play music on his violin.  The old man complies, and the Nazi circles him with a rifle he has taken from one of his soldiers, taunting him.  Finally he raps the old man in the teeth with the butt of his rifle and turns his attention to the old man's younger companion, cowering nearby.  At that moment the movie's main character, who observed these goings on as he went around the corner, reappears with a Walther P38 pistol in his hand and drops all three of the Nazis with three or four well-placed shots.  He and his friend quickly gather up the Nazi weaponry and depart, leaving the old man's companion standing there looking confused.  That is how you stop totalitarian thuggery:  When it has become endemic and the authorities aren't addressing it, or are obviously condoning it, that is the only way it stops, and only if it is made clear it is likely to happen every time some Nazi or Commie maggot wags his cool.

The context of the above two scenarios is clearly that of an extraordinarily brutal occupation government, though there is little difference between it and a community takeover by criminal thugs -- such as the drug cartels now moving north from the Mexican border into Arizona.  They have to be stopped before they get entrenched and develop a permanent infrastructure, or it will be next to impossible to root them out.  An example of the kind of situation you have once they have developed a permanent infrastructure is illustrated by what happened in a village in Communist China recently. This is another way totalitarianism works:

Chinese villagers had finally had it up to here with their corrupt communist officials confiscating their land and selling it to developers to build apartment complexes and shopping malls on, so they rioted.  The Commie hierarchy was just horrified at these terrible injustices imposed upon the villagers, so they fired two of the communist officials engaging in the confiscations (read: reassigned them to some other prefect, probably with a bonus and moving allowance).  Then they promised the villagers they would listen to their complaints -- but warned them there would be harsh measures taken if lawlessness continued.  After everyone calmed down and went home, they rounded up the ringleaders, interrogated them half to death for hours in rotating shifts, and then finished the job by torturing them until they died of a heart attack or some other convenient malady likely to occur when the bones in your hands or feet are crushed, your kneecaps are broken, and your fingernails are all yanked out.

It is an unfortunate reality that if you want the liberty of being secure from this kind of thuggery there is only one way to achieve it:  This must not be allowed to happen more than once.  The perpetrators must be brought to justice with extreme prejudice.  And the Resistance must be prepared to deal with the retribution and do it again.  A policy of collective retribution must be met with a policy of collective retribution -- but only among the perpetrators and their supervisory supporters:  Innocent family members are off limits.

Return to Top

"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle
anywhere, any time, and with utter recklessness."

--Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

FUNDAMENTAL FACT #1:  The only difference between socialism and Marxism is that Socialists believe their Utopia can be obtained through legislative reform, while Marxists know it can only be achieved by violent revolution.  (I read recently of a Viet Namese refugee, recently naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, who gave a speech at a naturalization ceremony in which he said "The only difference between socialism and Marxism is an AK-47 pointed at your head.")

FUNDAMENTAL FACT #2:  Any educated Marxist (i.e., not one of the useful idiots such as currently Occupying Wall Street and other cities) will confirm that Socialism is nothing but a transition stage between liberty and Marxism.

FUNDAMENTAL FACT #3:  No communist country has ever survived without capitalist countries infusing them with cash, usually in exchange for products made by slave labor.

FUNDAMENTAL FACT #4:  Marxism can be a Utopia -- but only for the Commissars and Profiteers and the particularly Useful Idiots (informants, enforcers, concubines, and the rare exploitable inventive genius).  Everyone else exists in enslavement and abject misery for the exclusive purpose of catering to the appetites of the self-appointed elite.

We must not go there.  We have already allowed socialism a significant toehold, giving up significant liberties and responsibilities in the process.  We must not allow its current transition to Marxism to proceed.

Return to Top

"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. W.G. Boykin (Ret.):


Watch:  The Legacy of Gun Control  Use your back button to return.



                                                              From Patriotic Action Network:

We must remember two things:

1.  Our nation was founded under conditions of martial law; our inherited and unalienable rights are as operative and defendable under conditions of martial law as they are at any other time, and the first obligation of any military authority enforcing martial law is to protect those inherited and unalienable rights of the people.

2.  The Marxist thugs in the administration won't see it that way.

(Also, the soldiers depicted in this video are not "U.S. Army" -- they are National Guard.  That's one way the Powers That Be [PTB] get around The Posse Comitatus Act [Title 18 Section 1385].)

EDIT:  I'm referring to the soldiers wandering through town in this video, not the U.S. Army soldiers being assigned to NORTHCOM:  If U.S. Army soldiers start enforcing the law against civilians, that is most definitely a violation of Posse Comitatus, and all hell must be raised.  But don't shoot U.S. Army soldiers!  Everything changes if we fire on our own soldiers, just as it will change if they fire on us!

Discussion:  There is a considerable argument over whether the U.S. military will involve itself in domestic law enforcement, and an extension of that argument is whether the U.S. military will involve itself in civilian pacification when domestic law enforcement doesn't work.  I think it will, but with a reservation:  A National Guard soldier confiscating guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina said to a reporter, "God, I never thought we'd be doing this to Americans!" But he was doing it in spite of his misgivings.  I think the administration will pick and choose unit and brigade-level commanders who believe their mission will be to "help" the civilian population, and who will be gung ho about getting the job done.  And initially, certainly, the mission will be to "help."  But there is a thing called "mission creep":  Before they know it, these commanders and these troops will be engaging in pacification, and I have faith, I have a conviction, that these commanders and these troops will very shortly be wondering what the heck they are doing.  There will be confusion in the ranks and confusion in the leadership, and there will be attempts to dispel confusion by laying out the protocols and objectives in a hard-line no-nonsense way -- but it isn't going to work.  Sooner or later, both the commanders and the troops will be losing enthusiasm for the mission, and unit morale and cohesion will suffer greatly.

Now, read this carefully:  The surest way to get these commanders and troops back online and enthusiastic about their mission -- and about going above and beyond their mission into torture and murder -- is to start shooting at them.  Don't do it!  The thing to do is play on their confusion and lack of enthusiasm.  Go easy at first, but point out the rules:  Subtly mention their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.  Subtly point out the totalitarian mindset of the administration as indicated by the obvious intent of their orders.  Play it right, and sooner or later the troops will join the people against this illegal, Marxist, totalitarian administration.  And remember:  If the administration is an Occupation Government not deriving its authority from the U.S. Constitution, this is not sedition.

Here is how we prevent our own military from turning against us:

The untold story of Katrina gun confiscation:

CLICK HERE for the "Fox News - Hannity" program exposing Obama's radical roots and his deception of the American people.
Return to Top

CLICK HERE for proof the above First Narcissist Twerp is not, and never will be, lawfully President of the United States.
Return to Top

What it boils down to is this:  If you raise enough hell (anti-thesis) in opposition to some commonly-accepted point of view held by society (thesis), and keep it up, sooner or later mainstream society will lose faith in the commonly-accepted point of view and tentatively accept the opposing point of view (synthesis).

Karl Marx and Frederic Engels used Hegel's Dialectic to back up their communist economic theory, and commies have been using it ever since.  Remember the (communist and/or communist-backed) anti-war protesters of the '60's?  At the time they were in a distinct minority.  But how common is the anti-war view today?  Now that I mention it:  How common is the communist view of everything today?  And how many people recognize that it is the communist point of view today?

I have been appalled more than once by ignorami who have listened to me quoting the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, and have asked if the political ideology I was advocating was ... Communism.  Sigh.

Item:  If you want South Africa to become a communist-governed nation, call for divestiture (stopping investments) in South Africa on the grounds that the Afrikaaner government enforces apartheid, and you will bring down the Afrikaaner government so a dirty, murdering communist sonofabitch by the name of Nelson Mandela can become president and rich, while the victims of apartheid starve and are ravaged by HIV.

Item:  If you want Americans to give up their privacy and allow themselves to be databased and be required to show their papers every time some government thug demands it (a la 1930's Germany) then create a huge uproar about illegal immigration and how it is destroying the country, and sooner or later the people will accept totalitarianism for protection -- since ultimately, some form of electronic REAL ID is the ONLY WAY of ensuring that only American-born or naturalized citizens are walking around loose.  (Of course it will turn out to be less than 100% accurate, but the PTB won't care; they will have their target population under lock and key.)

Item:  If you want to destroy the grass roots militias springing up all over the country because they are a threat to corrupt and totalitarian government, steal a Stinger missile, launch it at a civilian airliner, and blame it on the militias.  (TWA 800:  That was the plan, but they overplayed their hand and the militia they planned to blame it on didn't fall for the bait they offered, so they had to wing it.)

Item:  If you want to go after the militias again, blow up a government building with satchel charges in the basement while a truck full of fertilizer is parked on the street out front, and blame it on disaffected militia members.  (Except that plan fell apart when they discovered their 30-member militia group in Idaho consisted entirely of one militia leader and twenty-nine government undercover agents provocateur trying to get the group to go blow something up.  So they had to shut up their patsy by executing him and throwing anyone else who could blow the whistle into solitary confinement and promise them a quick exit from this mortal coil if they opened their mouth.)

Item:  If you want Americans to give up their right to travel anonymously, crash some airplanes into some buildings and blame it on terrorists.  Then everyone will be willing to show their ID before boarding an airplane -- or a train, or a bus, and eventually even private cars -- all in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism, of course.

The Hegelian Dialectic is not a new plan; as I said, Hegel came up with it around 1825; Marx and Engels used it in 1847 (and ever since), and Adolph Hitler used it when he had his brownshirts burn down the Reichstag (government building) and blamed it on "terrorists" so the people would give him more power to deal with Germany's "enemies."  Hmm.  Remind you of anything going on today?  Like TWA 800?  Waco?  The Oklahoma City Murrah Building?  The Twin Towers?

Return to Top

A refinement of the Hegelian Dialectic

Use your back button to return

are already a matter of federal statutes promulgated by the Occupation Government of the United States of America.
Google search "Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto" and you will find a number of websites listing the specific statutes involved.  Click your back button to return.

Through The Eyes of a Child

            A discussion of non-negotiable rights.

Proud member of the Read the Bills Act Coalition

Fully-Informed Jury Association

(Use your back button to return.)

John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act (H.R.450)  (Use your back button to return.)
            Adobe Reader is required to read this file.  Click HERE for free download.

"There are no dangerous weapons.
There are only dangerous men."

--Robert A.  Heinlein, (1907-1988) "Methuselah's Children"

Bloomfield Press



Supporting State Legislators in Performing Their Most Vital Constitutional Duties

This is an important effort:  If we don't get the States behind us, we will never bring the District of Criminals under control.

This website is a work in progress.  Please check back often.

Return to Top