"Real" Change we can believe in!"

A militarized police state is coming to our neighborhoods with us as its target- unless we start, right now to enforce the Constitution as is our right, and duty as American citizens.

Recently, I have been thinking long and hard about what our options really are with respect to the posture that the Federal government has taken on human rights, most especially the rights of "we the people". It seems to me that they are lacking in respect for the people they have sworn to serve. The will of the people has been voiced time and time again, on everything from immigration to gun control, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in most instances we are told that all we need is "change". Usually, when one examines just what that "change" entails, we are told that we will have to give up some more of our freedom to attain some questionable level of relief or comfort from whatever perplexes or annoys us.

As I pondered these thoughts one dismal evening, I came to the conclusion that only a policy of "blood and iron" will ever seriously get the attention of the sycophants in the Disgrace of Columbia; and the only viable option for actually achieving this is via the revival of the militia of the individual states. So with that thought in mind, I will digress from my series on the Constitution which I have been working on for these past months to say my piece on this subject, for I believe that if "we the people" are to succeed in keeping the republic, it will be only this way, and in the nick of time, as the enemy has us surrounded and pinned down!

In addition to the Feds' longstanding strategy of para-militarizing state and local police under the government umbrella of "homeland security", the tyrants in D.C. have two additional schemes openly in the works: 1. the overtly military, which will depend upon the deployment of the armed forces as domestic police, which is technically illegal under "Posse Comitatus"(not that they really care); and 2. the covertly military, which depends upon the creation of a proposed twenty-thousand man so-called "national security force".


The question is, and must be, "What should patriotic Americans do about this situation"?


As I have been describing in my recent posts on the Constitution: the government of the United States is a type of political machinery. When you are unsure as to how any piece of machinery should be used to the greatest effect, the wise operator will consult the manufacturer's set of instructions- in this instant, the Constitution. The Constitution clearly establishes four, and only four "homeland security" provisions:


1. "the militia of the several states"(Article 1 Sec. 8)


2. "the army"


3. "the navy"


4. "troops, and ships of war that the states may keep in times of peace with the consent of Congress (Article 1 Sec. 10)


Of these, ONLY the militia is described as "necessary for security": " a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed"(Amendment #2). Not just for security in some general sense, but specifically for "the security of a free state". And, contrary to what constitutes a popular argument these days as to what the militia was meant to be; it is patently NOT the National Guard, which is really a branch of the army!


The second amendment, through the militia, guarantees an actual "state" with independence, and its own sovereignty- not just some impotent subdivision of a regional, or global conglomerate in which each nation surrenders its identity, and authority for self-governance. It also guarantees "a free state"- one in which the people actually(not theoretically)govern themselves, because that is the only form of political organization entitled to the adjective "free"


Thus, the 2nd amendment, through the militia, preserves America's entire political system, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the constitutions of the all of the states.


Beside being "necessary, the militia are also the only form of permanent "homeland security" establishment that the Constitution absolutely mandates. Congress is not required to maintain, or provide an army, or navy, or to allow the states to keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, if any, or all of those forces are not deemed "necessary, and proper" under Article 1 Sec. 8. But neither Congress nor the states may dispense with "the militia of the several states, which the Constitution recognizes as "necessary" indefinitely in its existence, and continuance.


Thus, the militia are to be permanent because they are to be composed of "we the people" themselves! Constitutions, and governments may come, and go; but the people remain. The militia are hence, the only Constitutional claim to the title "democratic"(in the best sense of that over-rated adjective).


People govern themselves to the degree that they alone exercise supreme political power. Mao Tse-tung had it right when he said; "political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".


The militia are composed of "we the people" in their entirety- armed, organized, disciplined, and trained to wield the power of the sword. It is my belief that popular self-government is impossible without the militia fully active, and in force in "the several states".


Not too surprisingly, the Constitution expressely delegates to the militia the authority, and responsibility "to execute the laws of the union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions(Article 1 Sec.8 #15). As self-governors,"we the people' must exercise the ultimate power to execute the laws, because directly, or indirectly we make all of the laws! Thus, "we the people" are the law- subject only to"the laws of nature, and nature's God!!!


The President has the constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"(Article2 Sec.3) and thus appoints him as "commander in chief of the militia of the several states"when called into the actual service of the United States(Article 2 Sec. 2#1)


The key word here is "actual service" because the militia's subordination to the President can only occur when they are called into the "actual" service of the United States government as a whole. Otherwise, the militia are subject to the command of only their own officers, because the Constitution reserves to the states respectively" the appointment of the officers"(Article 1 Sec. 8#16). The requirement that the militia come under the command of the President solely in the "actual" service of the United States provides a safeguard against any rogue President's usurpation, and tyranny. Thus, by this act, the militia are authorized on Constitutional grounds to ascertain for themselves whether any command from a President are at that time genuine to the interests of the states, or pretended by some act of tyranny on the part of the President.


In other words, is the "service" in the national interest of "we the people", or is it in the interest of something else? If it is not in the interest of "we the people" as we understand it, than we have the right, the duty, Constitutionally, to follow it, or not.


Therefore, the requirement of "actual service" reinforces the 2nd Amendment's definition of the militia's purpose: "the security of a free state", a state in which the people really and genuinely govern themselves, particularly as it relates to the decision to employ their own armed force in the "service" of their own " common defence".



The incorporation of the Militia into the Constitution is not just a matter of Constitutional Theory, but also because the Founders were quite familiar with the Militia's practical uses in the area of "homeland security". This would seem to indicate that the Militia would be just the thing that is needed in the present state of terrorist alert that we have been living in since 9/11. The opportunity to demonstrate their usefulness would be perhaps, more evident than ever before. For example, a fully realized Militia will provide literally millions of citizen soldiers to patrol streets, malls, public parks, and buildings thus maximizing deterrence against terrorists, and potential criminals. Because the Militia are composed of every adult in the community, their existence will ferret out every illegal alien who make his presence known to anyone in the community. A revitalized Militia will emphasize local readyness, and self-reliance in all its forms from securing food supplies, fuel, medicines, and other critical materials necessary in the event of emergency from manipulations by any outside speculators who might attempt to control them for their own purposes, to putting into practice an alternate constitution, and solvent monetary system that will protect the community from the inevitable collapse of the Federal Reserve System, and its "shadow" government.

With the revitalized Militia monitoring polling places, and verifying the counting of paper ballots, the present day scourge of voting fraud will be terminated. Because all elected public officials will be members of the Militia, and will thereby be subject to investigation by the Militia for whatever infractions of the law they might commit, political corruption, police brutality, and the arrogance of power so wide spread, and uncontrolled today will receive swift, and just exposure, and punishment. When young adults, and mature teens, through Militia discipline, and training recognize that they are being prepared to genuinely direct, and defend their country's future under their own authority, and in their own interest with an understanding of the personal as well as the public purpose, and benefits of, and from patriotism, then the level of aimlessness, drug use, and mindless violence so prevalent among the young people of today will shrink into insignificance. This aspect alone should make the revitalization of the Militia a paramount concern for our nation's leaders as they assume the reigns of responsibility for the future direction of the country.

Sadly, this picture of real social progress, "real change we can believe in", because common Americans would themselves be responsible for it, is at present a dream to be visited behind closed doors at night in our beds. It is as if we have arrived at the point finally where the only fear we have to fear is the fear of our own possibility of success.

Although the Constitution requires that all able-bodied adult Americans(excepting conscientous objectors) be organized in some manner in "the Militia of the several states"; Congress, and State legislatures have consigned Americans to the illegal "unorganized militia" that operates outside of the system in the side alleys in a fearful, pathetic attempt to defend itself from the present darkness that is descending upon us. And although the Constitution requires that all members of the Militia possess firearms equivalent in firepower to those carried by light infantry units in the Armed forces, Congress has busyied itself enacting statutes(that the states have not opposed) that make it nearly impossible for the average American to acquire this necessary equipment even while pretending to uphold "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The Constitution sets forth in plain English that the Militia is absolutely necessary in the preparation of a free people according to the principles of self-reliance, self-suffiency, and especially self-governance, to deal with "homeland security" in the most effective, and legal fashion in their home states, and local towns. And although it is illegal for these programs to not be in operation, there are no plans at present for the implementation, or even the contemplation of beginning to establish them.

This situation is intolerable, and flies in the face of Congress's absolute duty to organize, arm, discipline, and train the Militia according to Article 1 Sec.8 clause 16. The 2nd Amendment declares that "a well organized Militia is necessary to the security of a free state", and that a "well regulated militia" are those organized according to the pattern common in the colonies, and independent states prior to the ratification of the Constitution, and as such, Congress must exercise its power by enacting such appropriate legislation to empower it. If Congress fails, or refuses to do so, the states must themselves enact it by their own statutes as "the Militia of the several States"

In July of 2008, Barack Obama was reported to have said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that have been established. We must establish a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, strong, and well funded."
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's White house Controller has followed these statements by saying:"We are planning to have universal civil defense training. Somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months training which will give young people a sense of what it means to be American."

My son would be terminally deficient in patriotism if he needed the likes of Barack Obama, or anyone else at the pyramid of power in the Disgrace of Columbia, to give him a "sense of what it means to be American". This is especially true when one considers how much more deficient is Obama with respect to his familiarity with elementary constitutional principles.

We, who are by nature suspicious of politicians, may rightly speculate as to what are the true purposes Obama and his ilk may be planning for in the establishment of any new "civilian nationl security force" that would indoctrinate a generation of young Americans in the Party line, teaching them how to be "good" citizens of the world, then turning them loose to terrorize the remaining patriotic Americans into acquiesing to the totalitarian ideal that would become a modern Hitler Youth militarizing, and fanaticizing young Americans into becoming cannon fodder in foreign wars designed by their imperial masters to advance the cause of global fascism. Such suspicions are not needed for us to know that the proposed "civilian national security force" is, to say the least, undesirable, and also quite unecessary, for unless that force solely, and faithfully serves Constitutional purposes, it will serve non-American, un-American, and probably anti-American special interests.

There is a "civilian security force" already provided for by the American Constitution for the purpose of "homeland security" that if enacted, will take the form of the revitalized "Militia of the several States". Anything else will be unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

So, now what? What must the patriots of America demand of Obama if he refuses to do his duty in upholding the Constitution? Simply put, "if it is to be, it is up to me" "we the people" must enforce the Constitution by the revitalization of the Militia. Now that would be real "change we could believe in"! And in the nick of time too.

The Revolution will be televised.

"What have ye wrought?"

The Constitution was the settlement of a revolution, and on which class the political center of power would come to rest. The human race is ultimately divided into two political groups; those who desire to be controlled, and those who do not.

It was opened on May 25, 1787 to suggest some mere revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The proposed constitution was approved on September 17, and the closed doors of secrecy were finally opened to the world. It was on this date that a local woman inquired of Benjamin Franklin the now famous question, "What have ye wrought?" Will it be a republic, or a monarchy? Franklin's answer,"A Republic, if you can keep it.", was an outright half-truth as he knew that there was no way that the convention had created a "keepable" republic. When analyzed in contrast to the history that has followed since 1787, it very clearly shows that the Constitution was purposely weighted with with several components that were designed to guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government.

Under the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Congress depended on the good will of the states (how awful!). Had the states not waged pointless trade wars with each other, and been more responsible with their use of currencies, most of the opposition to their continuance could have been avoided. Congress did not have the power to raise taxes, to regulate commerce, or to prohibit the states from coining money. Since Congress assembled could not act without unanimous agreement, the states often ignored them. Congress "got no respect".

For those who desired an "energetic" central government, this was intolerable. Washington said, "experience has taught us that men will not carry into execution such measures that are the best for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power". Of course "the best for their own good" was to be determined by their imperial majesties, the "nationals", as they always know what is best for the people (sound familiar?). To get to the point: the Articles of Confederation created a Congress which had to go begging to the states, and the control freaks were chomping at the bit! This sort of thing infuriated the nationals. Jay wrote to Washington,"Rage for private property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the object of greater attention. Virtue can only be exerted by a strong , central government that will put down the crisis at hand".

Great effort behind the scenes was done to foment a panic over the overstated "crisis at hand". A "weak government" cannot muster a viable defending army to protect the nation from powerful nations without, and from the Indians within, so we need to strengthen Congress. Translate: create the "problem"; create opposition to the"problem", offer your solution to the "problem"(sound familiar?). This is the classic Hegelian philosophy so well used by the Socialists/Communists of today. Most men in the know were having none of it, and vigorously challenged any notion of the existence of a "crisis". A year later in his June of 1788 warning against the adoption of the Constitution, Patrick Henry would say: "I ask you; where is that danger? I see none. Why then tell us of supposed dangers to terrify us into the adoption of this new government? Sirs, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves".

In retrospect, although some might disagree, the Articles of Confederation have been unfairly criticized by historians I think, perhaps due to the many weighted books, and opinions that have been used in arguments against them. But it should be remembered that the Articles successfully brought a war to conclusion, and negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which gave the USA world status as a nation, and gave the new nation a lesson in the need for interstate cooperation in the handling of national problems which led to the further refinement in the practical application of such measures.

In the Autumn of 1786, the nationalists had their "crisis" - self created of course - with Shay's Rebellion. After the revolution, most states raised taxes to pay their war debts, and kept them as paper currency issues for the most part in various degrees. Massachusetts debtors that could not pay in currency had their cattle and lands seized and were thrown in jail. All petitions for relief were ignored, and a flashfire rebellion ensued. Armed farmers (another good reason to keep and bear arms) prevented courts from opening, and stopped the seizures. Led by Daniel Shays, eleven hundred angry men attacked the Springfield courthouse and federal arsenal. Although they were easily defeated, and dispersed by a superior force, the politicians panicked and created a hysteria that spread through the states like a wildfire. They made it seem that this was the beginning of the end!

While the rebellion was a failure militarily speaking, it made for a rout in the spring of 1787 elections. John Hancock easily defeated the inflexible Governor James Bowdoin, as well as three-fourths of the House members. Relief laws were immediately enacted, the seizures stopped, and the imprisoned debtors were freed rendering further rebellions as being unneccessary. The nationals, however, had their "crisis". Shay's rebellion was the proverbial "drop that overflowed the vase", and set the wheels in motion for the call for the convention of 1787 to be held in Philadelphia. Madison himself admitted years later that the "unjustified sense of alarm which threatened the economic status quo contributed to the uneasiness which produced the Constitution more than any inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation."

In other words, it wasn't the "principles". It was the "money" and the consequent loss of power by the "moneyed" class that constituted a "crisis" in the land. By alarming the people with fears of a looming, hollow "crisis", delegates were sent to Philadelphia for the purpose of "revising the Articles of Confederation"- not scrapping them entirely for a replacement. But the nationalists knew that this was their moment. Madison had already sent his replacement plans to Washington, and Hamilton for their review in April prior to the convention. The evidence is that the nationalists hidden agenda, unbeknownst to the other delegates and the people at large, was to scrap the Articles in favor of replacing them with their own form of "energetic" central government.

As always, the people did not understand the sweeping nature of the scheme. "The American war is over, but the American revolution has just begun," said conventioneer Benjamin Rush. Little wonder why the convention operated under such extraordinary secrecy. The delegates were sworn to the strictest silence, sentries were posted at all doors, and the windows were shut tight. Fifty-three years would pass before Madison's thoroughly edited notes were publically released. Great measures of propaganda were used to conceal the true levels of dissent that were present. Electing the widely respected George Washington as convention president was responsible for much of the "public confidence" that was associated with these meetings. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least "21 of the 55 delegates favored some sort of monarchy", and although generally of high caliber, most delegates were of the "moneyed" class, and as such were anxious for a national government that would make them the rightful inheritors of power.

The American countryside of "middle class yeoman" that were so much championed by Jefferson were hardly represented at the convention. The "Virginia Plan" supporters, Hamilton and company, pretty much wanted to abolish the state governments. Madison proposed that they be "reduced to corporations", and Hamilton imagined that they" might gradually dwindle in power to nothing", which is in fact exactly what has happened in both instances. It should be noted that the famous revolutionaries were not delegates, either by choice or by circumstance. Jefferson, and Adams were on assignment in Europe. Patrick Henry had outright refused to participate in such vility, while Thomas Paine and, Samuel Adams were not among the chosen (I wonder why). So the stage was set, and the plan was ready for enactment. Madison's plan, which he envisioned as "strengthening the confederacy", in fact did not and was hotly contested by the defenders of state sovereignty. William Paterson offered a fair compromise called the "New Jersey Plan". It provided that any laws that were to be applied to all states would be "the supreme laws", and would be reserved to Congress with the executive having the power to enforce the law if necessary. Each state would have an equal voice in Congress, and would retain most of the attributes of sovereignty. This is, in a nutshell, the Swiss system.

Fearing that the convention might slip out of the nationalists' control and (Horrors!) return to the the original idea of revision, the brilliant attorney from New York, Alexander Hamilton, spoke on June 18 for five hours praising the British Constitution as the world's best, opining for a Senate and Presidency elected for life, and declaring that state government should be appointed by Congress (wow). Little wonder that John Adams referred to him as an "Anglophile" from that point on. However, his long-winded afternoon harangue cleverly made Madison's Virginia Plan seem like a viable compromise and quite moderate by comparison. Hamilton later molded his "energetic" central government from the willing clay of this plan.

It is an interesting side note that the other two delegates from New York refused to be cowed into siging on to the fraudulent illegality, leaving Hamilton to generously sign for New York by himself. This is why his name is the only one that appears on the document in behalf of one of the wealthiest, and most populous states of that time. A bit of math is illumininating here. The states chose 74 delegates, 19 of whom refused to attend. Of the 55 who did, 14 left early, leaving 41. Of those 41, 3 refused to sign. So, only 39 of 74 delegates actually signed on to the hallowed document, or 53%.

Asked why he boycotted the convention, Patrick Henry replied, "Because I smelt a rat."

In retrospect, the convention was a well-run "dog and pony show", and the debates were an excellent piece of deliberation by a singularly august body of 18th century cosmopolitan Americans. That aside, what did it achieve? In any proposed governmental ideal, trying to discern at the outset the probable ultimate beneficiary of that action will be difficult. It is like a game of chess. The winner can only be recognized by a series of board moves to the completion of the game, or "checkmate". Patrick Henry and George Mason feared that the inherent weaknesses that were written into the Constitution would produce a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, and after 222 years, that is what has happened!

It appears that the real genius of the Constitution has been to utterly transform political reality without the subject people knowing it. It has destroyed the power of the states without sound or smoke, and like a Houdini trick, by the time the people realized what had happened, it was too late. Read between the lines of Washington's transmittal letter of the Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into any society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the rest". Does that sound like a blank check or what? The words of the avowed Socialist Hillary Clinton are very nicely encapsulated in this letter ("to stop terrorism and organized crime, the American people must give up some of their personal freedom, and privacy."). Wow!

The Constitution's obvious tendency towards an expansionist government was clearly understood by the anti-federalists of 1787-88. Would they be able to sound the warning in time to defeat ratification? Sadly, no, but they sure came close...

The revolution will not be televised.

Original post date 10/23/2008. Date changed to bring it to the top due to extended edit time. - RWR