Bio not provided
@Calvinius No, it doesn't. The States and People are, in the 10th Amendment, given the rights not allocated to the federal government. The 2nd Amendment, in particular, PROHIBITS the federal, state and local governments from INFRINGING on a citizen's RIGHT to own firearms. The Supremacy Clause only applies where the federal government WAS given authority IN THE CONSTITUTION. Just because they pass a "law" doesn't make it constitutional and therefor legal.
1 year, 3 months ago on Let Me Say This Clearly
As Jefferson said,
"An armed society is a polite society".
All you have to do is look at the past. When did all these shootings start happening? First one was in 1968 at Austin, TX. Deranged vet going through psychiatric "help", the start of meds used on vets for psychiatric problems. Fast forward. What is the common denominator of almost all these rage shootings? Most are on psy-meds. Think we need to be looking there, Mr. Politician? No, of course that would chop into their lobbying moneys.
1 year, 6 months ago on Tenther Radio Episode #78: Nullifying Federal Gun Laws, and the Constitution Solution for the CT Massacre
One thing we need to push for at the State level along with nullification laws is a statute that proclaims, if the federal government does not relinquish the rights back to the States that it has usurped, the State will withhold ALL tax money from going to the federal government. After all, this was the last remedy that was proscribed by the Founders to counter this type of tyranny.
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”
1774, Journals of the Continental Congress,1:105-113 [emphasis added]
Imagine the feds scrambling to secure more loans from debtors around the world who are already owed so much... It would be priceless.
2 years ago on Maybe Now they will Listen
@WilliamSchooler Petitions don't work. They can just wad them up and toss them. You have to have protests and get in their face. Only when they really feel threatened of loosing their cushy little "jobs" do they do anything that benefits us.
Voting is a joke. The one with the biggest war chest and blows the most smoke up your ass almost always gets the nomination. Very seldom do they keep one promise they make.
Just goes to show, with all the grammatical errors in their ramblings, that Jefferson was correct when he said,
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."
So let these little minded, statist loving, arm chair general, cowardly little people think what they want. They're going to anyway, no matter the evidence to the contrary. They will never have the intellectual superiority to counter our movement, we are gaining ground, and they hate it. Idiocy doesn't stand a chance unless we cower to it. So stay active and in their face.
2 years ago on The America-Haters Strike Again
The thing about it is if the federal government withholds taxes, the States withhold payments of taxes to them.... Tit for tat works real well.
2 years ago on Tenther Radio Episode 55: Organize!
Thank you, sir, for everything you do and for giving us a forum to discuss how to dismantle this tyrannical beast that is the feral, oops federal, government.
2 years ago on Thank You!
@babcicathy The reason there is no across the line competition is that the insurance companies have too many politicians in their back pockets. If prices dropped as happens with competition, their profits would suffer. It's part of the crony capitalism that's strangling the people.
2 years, 1 month ago on Rome, Revisited
I disagree with the U.S. being a "country". It is an alliance, supposedly a mutually beneficial one between the States, and it was only suppose to be on economic and military (defensive, not offensive) grounds. There was to be a standing Navy, but the States were to retain control over their Armies (militias) and only relinquished that right to the President under order of Congress declaring war. The commerce clause was only to deal with tariffs and excises on trade between the various States and between them and other countries. The Supreme Court was only to hear cases involving people of different States, between the States, and dealing with Admiralty law. They were never to hear about "Constitutionality" of a federal law. That is up to the States and the people therein to decide, and either follow it or nullify it, plain and simple. What should happen is Arizona just goes through with implementing all aspects of the law, if the jack boots send troops in that would be the worst mistake they ever made. If they try to withhold funds, then Arizona can quit sending federal tax payments in and expel every feral, oops federal, agent in their borders that aren't citizens of Arizona. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
@BillWalker Of course a judge has to rule on this, right? Would you take a state judge's opinion, or does it have to be a federal one? If you say federal, then I ask you why would a member of the federal government give back power usurped by the same? That is like asking the wolf to watch over the sheep pen. No, it is up to the States to reassert their powers.
2 years, 1 month ago on Setting Things Straight on Nullification
So true. I have been saying for a long time that multi-culturalism will be the death of the U.S. You only have to look at Rome and see that their fall was soon after they began touting other cultures of conquered people as an alternative or in some cases as superior to their own.
2 years, 1 month ago on Beware the Word "Extremist"
I would say that the problem with our financial system is Congress shirked it's responsibility of COINING money and gave a PRIVATE bank the ability to print FIAT money based on fractional lending. They did this in 1913 under the guise that it would keep us from having recessions.... Fast forward 16 years and we had the worst one in our history, all due to the contraction of the money supply controlled by international banksters. A government has the responsibility to issue sound currency, such as the colonies did with Colonial Script, but the federal government DOES NOT have the right to tell the States or individuals they can not coin money of their own or accept gold, silver or any other product as payment of debt. As a few notable people, one a Patriot and one a scoundrel, said,
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson, ardent Patriot and Founding Father
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."
Amschel Meyer Rothschild, international bankster
2 years, 1 month ago on 5 Greatest Threats to Your Liberty Today
Does anyone remember how in the Orwelle novel 1984 Big Brother used flying machines, I can't remember what they were called, to spy on the main character. GET ACTIVE IN YOUR LOCAL AND STATE POLITICS TO CHANGE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS TYPE OF TYRANNY, it's our only hope. The feral, oops I mean the federal, government was only meant to be an economic and defense treaty between the States of the union, basically the same as the European Union. We need to bring it back to that.
2 years, 2 months ago on Is There a Drone in Your Backyard?
We need to call these people out. Each and every time. Mass mailings showing our discontent with their view of how America should be. Below is what I wrote to this preacher of falsehoods.
I would venture to say that as an "expert" on the U.S. Constitution, a term loosely used and wildly thrown around in today's spectrum, you should understand the ramifications of the NDAA on civil liberties and other tenets of the American way afforded by the Constitution. You state that the Supremacy Clause negates any action of the collective States regarding any illegal bill the U.S. Congress passes, and to believe that a State can nullify such a law is at one's own "peril".
Can I ask a question? What "peril" is that, that the federal government has to adhere to the treaty between the States, aka the U.S. Constitution, the same as the States do? That our civil liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution, but constantly eroded by power hungry bureaucrats, would be upheld? The belief that the Supremacy Clause is the end all, be all is lunacy. It is only viable IF the federal law is "in pursuance of" it's itemized powers lined out in the Constitution, NOT any whim the federal government has to usurp the States' or Peoples' rights.
Can I ask another question? I'll use an analogy. I assume you live in a gated community, like most oligarchical leaning elitists do. What would you say if your HOA (federal government), being instituted by the homeowners (States), began to extend their grasp beyond the original, agreed to charter. Say, telling you what types of trees to plant, what car can sit in your drive, what color that car has to be, etc... even who you can let live in YOUR house. Would you sit by idly and allow your rights to be dissolved, or would you be at the next meeting vehemently protesting their rulings? I would venture to say the latter, which is exactly what the Virginia government is doing. They are upholding their end of the bargain, protecting their citizen's rights. I would hope any true American, who cherishes their freedom, would do the same. In the end, freedom and liberty will be the order of the day, not tyranny and enslavement. Americans are tired of the usurpation of our liberties, and we will not sit by idly and allow this to continue. You speak of "critical mass"? Well, we are there.
-- "I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either." -John Adams
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" -Sam Adams
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and shall suredly lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
2 years, 3 months ago on Wittes Protection
I agree with most of what the article says and the comments regarding this article, however a few misconceptions in this article and the comments should be pointed out.
While Congress is authorized , under Article 1 Section 8, "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures", they are not authorized to commit fraud in the way of issuing fiat paper money. Although Congress can issue paper money, it must be nothing more than a receipt for an actual precious metal or some other valuable commodity, even oil, that a holder can exchange for a determined amount, which Congress IS authorized to set. Although before the Revolutionary War the various colonial governments issued what is known as Colonial Script, which was very successful and the crackdown on it by the British government due to influence of the Bank of England was one of the precursors to the War, it was known that it was to be an engine for the facilitation of commerce and was to be issued accordingly. Can you imagine what the spendthrifts in Congress today would do if given the power to issue fiat money? It would be worse than the FED... Although they should be done away with considering they are a privately owned bank that was instituted by a fraudulent scheme by international bankers (if you don't know the history of "national" banks in America, I suggest you take a crash course) and the law that ushered them in was never properly ratified. What needs to happen is Congress relegates and regulates paper money, issued by the Treasury and backed by something substantial and whose value is set on a semi-regular basis to stave off the kind of inflation we have to deal with now. There should also be a move to repeal the 16th Amendment, which gave the federal government the "right" to steal the fruits of labor without it being duly apportioned before being taxed, and the 17th which took away the States representation in Congress and the reassertion of War Powers by Congress, the Executive branch be damned.
Another issue that should be tackled is jurisprudence having bearing on the decisions of the Supreme Court. I understand that the concept is sound, you do not want laws changing all the time, but they do anyway with a runaway Congress enacting bills without even reading them. When new themes dealing with the original intent are brought forward regarding new or landmark cases that the Supreme Court decides, the Court should be MANDATED to review them and rule accordingly. "Interpretation" is an insidious supposition, all too often it is used to further a political agenda. The original intent should be the ONLY basis for the decisions regarding law.... Then again, I would like to see the "constitutionality" powers taken away from the Supreme Court, which it was never intended for, and returned to the States by way of nullification....
2 years, 3 months ago on The Great Forgetting
Anybody who hasn't heard of it, look up "The Battle of Athens"... It shows why our 2nd Amendment rights are sooooooooooooooo vital, and why the DHS has added returning vets to their proposed "right wing extremist" list....
2 years, 4 months ago on Can the President Kill You?
There is another problem with this legislation. Congress is to set up a commission to see if the different states' processes of licensing is OK to the federal government. They will also standardize the biometric identity markers. My state only requires a fingerprint, which I believe I should not have to provide in the first place unless I commit a crime, but what happens when they tell us they need a retinal scan, or DNA sample, etc... This is one of the underlying problems with federal involvement, they are overreaching.
2 years, 7 months ago on Aborting Guns?