Home

The Death of the Republic Revisited

10 Comments

by: Gary Rea (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________

In my article, How the American Republic Died at Philadelphia in 1787 I showed, with quotes from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, alike, how our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781) was illegally scrapped and replaced with a new Constitution (1787), which formed a wholly new government – one which was deliberately designed to grow into the fascistic behemoth we see today. Here, I will go into the various ingenious ways in which the Federalists designed the Constitution to achieve that end, all while making it appear as though our liberties were safeguarded.

First, though, I think it is necessary to point out exactly how and why this subterfuge was illegal, in the first place. The best way of doing so is to simply examine the wording of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation, which says:

“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” More

Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection

3 Comments

 rense.com

Naked Capitalism
12-21-9

“After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.” They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever – save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.”  READ FULL ARTICLE

http://www.rense.com/general88/supreme.htm

What More Proof Do We Need That the NRA Isn’t What it Claims to Be?

Leave a comment

I have been writing, for some time, now, on Second Amendment issues and, in particular, about the fact the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a Trojan horse organization that has no interest in protecing the Second Amendment. I have presented a solid case here, before, that shows the NRA has, for seventy-five years, not only refused to call for the repeal of all existing gun laws (which is the only way to truly save the Second Amendment from further infringement), but that they have, in case after case, actually backed more gun control laws.

Usually, though, the NRA will attempt to disguise their actions by occasionally appearing to oppose some new gun law, now and then, just to keep up appearances. This is usually enough to fool their supporters who blindly continue to believe that the NRA is fighting for their rights. Funny thing, though; if that’s what the NRA is truly doing, then why are our Second Amendment rights almost gone now, as compared to decades ago?

Well, in yet another moment in its history in which its members should be finally made aware that the NRA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the NRA has mysteriously remained mute on the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, a gun rights opponent, has ruled, in lower court cases, that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, for one thing. Need I remind Ms. Sotomayor that the Constitution – of which the Second Amendment is a part – is the law of the land and overrides all other laws? No state, according to their constituional limitations, may pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution, anymore than the federal government may do so.

While, supposedly, Senate Republicans were hoping that the NRA would have something to say about Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court, strangely enough (or not), the NRA has stayed out of the issue, claiming it’s waiting for the Senate confirmation hearings. This should be interesting. I’ll wager right here and now that Sotomayor is appointed to the court no matter what the NRA may have to say about it. It’s already a done deal behind closed doors.

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Grabbing

4 Comments

In its first major ruling since the so-called Heller “decision,” in which the Supreme Court said that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms “within reasonable limitations” (with what is “reasonable” left to the government’s interpretation), the court ruled seven to two in favor of continuing to block access to firearms by so-called “domestic abusers,” a ruling that, according to this article from an anti-gun source, was applauded by the anti-gun crowd.

The Supreme Court’s decision, on Tuesday, basically overturns a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the so-called Lautenberg amendment, which would have supposedly “greatly expanded” the ability of people convicted for or arrested for “domestic abuse” to own a gun. The Supreme Court is, basically, saying that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Lautenberg isn’t stringent enough.

The original Clinton administration law that criminalized gun ownership by anyone even arrested for a domestic abuse complaint removed the possibility of these people arming themselves against a fascistic government and, that, of course, is its real intent. By chipping away, little by little, at who may own a gun, the government disarms the population by legislative fiat, saving the trouble and expense of sending armed thugs out to collect guns.

This Supreme Court decision makes it quite clear that the court’s intent in the Heller decsision was to open the door to further regulation of gun ownership, not to “protect” gun owners from confiscation, as so many have stupidly believed the court intended. Government never relinquishes its power willingly and the two main powers it guards most jealously are the power of the purse and the power of the sword (powers that it didn’t have a monopoly on under the original constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation). With the ability to control the economy and our ability to defend ourselves, the government can do with us as it pleases.

The Second Amendment is quite clear. It does not specify who may be armed and who shall not be and any attempt by the government to tell us otherwise is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is clear, also. It says that we have a right and a duty to throw off and replace an oppressive government. How much more oppressive does the government have to be when it is deliberately gaurding its power over us by denying the Constitution is the law of the land? The government’s legal limitations are what the Constitution describes. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it acknowledges and protects our existing rights, including the right to defend our lives and property against a despotic government. That the government has, for over 75 years, sought to limit our Constitutionally protected ability to protect ourselves from its incursions into our lives says, quite clearly what its true intentions are.

Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: