08 31 19 The Humanitarian Hoax of the New World Order: Killing America With Kindness





Please read and ponder the truth in this excellent article. Those of the younger generation have been successfully brain washed by our so called education and media systems and present a serious danger to our freedom. Once we surrender to socialism there will be no return to freedom. Now is the time to do your home work and examine the benefits of self-government. Anna Von Reitz is the best source of information you need to know. http://www.annavonreitz.com/

by Linda Goudsmit August 31, 2019

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Every natural force on Earth from fire to nuclear energy has the potential for construction or destruction. This inherent duality presents man with moral choices between construction and destruction. Traditional Judeo-Christian morality deems construction good and destruction bad. What happens when the accepted foundational morality of society is challenged by a competing narrative that insists construction is bad and destruction is good? Let’s find out.

Societies as small as families and as large as nation states are organized by accepted principles codified into written or unwritten laws accepted by member units. When societies abide by the accepted rules they are considered to be at homeostasis – they are at peace and in balance. When a competing narrative intrudes, the society becomes destabilized and must either accept or reject the competing ideology to regain balance, peace, and homeostasis.

Traditionally, American culture derives its stability and moral authority from its Judeo-Christian tradition, Constitutional law, and parental authority in the family unit. God, government, and family are the triptych of American culture and the foundations for America’s extraordinary ordered liberty. America’s triptych is the artwork of American greatness and portrays the triad that supports our unparalleled freedom and prosperity.

Today’s radical leftist Democrat party is challenging the foundational American triptych and is attempting to repaint its panels with socialism. Here is the problem.

In politics it is essential that policies be analyzed and evaluated with rational objectivity – when they are not, the consequence is belief in the unbelievable. I call this political mysticism – the belief in the politically impossible. “Democratic” socialism is the 21st century’s political mysticism seducing Americans with promises of heaven on Earth. Millennials disenchanted with the religious teachings of their Judeo-Christian heritage are searching for answers to man’s moral dilemma elsewhere. Some find it in supremacist religious Islamic sharia law. Others are duped by leftist radical Democrats advocating the political mysticism of secular democratic socialism.

No successful humanitarian huckster sells socialism by promising enslavement – hucksters promise utopian social justice and income equality instead. They promise “free stuff” to the hopeful masses and con them into voting for their “deliverance” at the voting booth.

Let’s be clear – FREE STUFF IS NEVER FREE – people pay with their freedom.

Collectivism, whether it is marketed directly as communism, indirectly as socialism, or deceitfully as democratic socialism is a structure of centralized government control. America’s radical leftist Democrat party and their allied Islamists and Globalists, are selling the upside-down notions and inverted logic of “democratic” socialism to shatter America from within in 2020.

Collectivism is slavery marketed as freedom. George Orwell described the upside-down notions and inverted logic of collectivism when he wrote, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Orwell was a political analyst who understood that, “All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.”

There is no private property in collectivism – individual citizens do not reap what they sow – the government does. So, first comes the fraud – the promise of social justice and income equality. Then comes the force – a centralized ruling government that owns and/or controls all production and its distribution.

Winston Churchill described the reality of socialism, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Churchill understood that socialism is a return to feudalism where the ruling elite benefit at the expense of the shared misery of the masses. Yes – you read that correctly – socialism is the stepping stone for globalist elite one world government. Let me explain.

Failed cultural Marxism has been repackaged with the magic word “democratic” to overcome reflexive American resistance to communism, socialism, and to disguise collectivism’s tyrannical core. It is a fraudulent marketing technique designed to sell political mysticism. The word democratic is being used to paint lipstick on this particular political pig. Democratic socialism is presented with mystical reverence as deliverance of social justice and income equality – millennial salvation.

Humanitarian huckster-in-chief Barack Obama tried selling socialism to America by disguising it as “hope and change.” He might have succeeded if Hillary Clinton, Obama’s legacy candidate and fellow Alinsky sycophant, had been elected. Instead, today’s emboldened radical leftist Democrats and their “resistance” movement have repackaged their product reverently relabeling it “democratic” socialism. WHAT?

In theater as in religion, there is the concept of suspension of disbelief. The audience does not examine the plot or characters with the same rational analysis that is required of objective scientific study. When political theory is presented as religion, the same suspension of disbelief is accepted. Why does this matter?

It matters because suspension of disbelief is the core of political mysticism. Duped millennials argue that old attempts at communism and socialism were not the “real” communism and socialism – democratic socialism is the real deal. Oh my!

The aspiration for world domination simply will not go away. A sovereign United States of America is the existential enemy of any aspirational movement for one world government whether secular or religious. It was clear to anyone and everyone after WWII that if the United States of America was ever to be defeated it would have to be shattered from the inside out – culturally – military defeat was out of the question. It was with this mindset that the enemies of American greatness resolved to destroy America from within. The Culture War against America took aim at the foundational structures of the triptych – God, government, and family. The hearts and minds of patriotic Americans would have to be turned against themselves to defeat America. America would have to implode.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis is targeting the triptych of American greatness to destroy her from within. The immediate alliance goal is to defeat America-first President Donald Trump in 2020. The Leftists are selling voters the political mysticism of secular democratic socialism, and the Islamists are selling voters the political mysticism of supremacist Islamic sharia law.

Winston Churchill remarked that “Islam is an ideology wrapped in religion.” He understood that peace on Earth to an Islamist means when all the world is Muslim. Churchill recognized the theocratic foundation of Islam and its socio-political requirement that no separation exist between mosque and state – in Islam religion is the centralized controlling government.

Winston Churchill was reviled for saying the unsayable. He spoke the inconvenient truth about Islamist and Globalist aspirations for world domination in his time, and was hated for it until he was needed to save England from the Nazis. Oh my!

History is repeating itself. Today Islamism and democratic socialism are twin enemies of American sovereignty.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis is the facilitator of the humanitarian hoax of the New World Order, but it is only a temporary alliance.

If the axis can defeat President Trump in 2020 they will necessarily battle each other for dominance. The provisional alliance will remain only until they can destabilize America and make the country ungovernable. Social chaos is the prerequisite for seismic social change. Anarchy is the goal.

Anarchy will launch Globalist elite takeover and it will become manifest that the globalists have been financing and fomenting the Leftist/Islamist mischief and mayhem in the United States. The Leftists and Islamists were just useful idiots who ushered in the New World Order ruled by the globalist elite themselves – of course.

The globalist elite have been playing chess while the Leftists and Islamists are playing checkers.

The United States of America is at the tipping point. The 2020 presidential elections will decide the country’s future. Will we re-elect President Donald Trump and remain a sovereign, free, independent nation? Or will we choose Democrat political mysticism and devolve into the globalist elite’s New World Order of feudalism and become their slaves? Your ballot decides.

08 30 19 Understanding Britain and the British “Crisis”



 By Anna Von Reitz

If you are watching television today you are hearing a lot of scratching and squawking about the Queen suspending Parliament.  You are also hearing a lot of very queer verbiage about “our unwritten and flexible constitution….”

Say what?  An “unwritten” and “flexible” constitution?

That’s the equivalent of saying— an unwritten and flexible contract to buy your home, or secure your services to paint a house.  It’s a sort of wink and nod arrangement, in which you are “presumed” to approve of and trust whatever the legislature does “in your name”.

Sound familiar?  It’s the same exact schtick that the British Crown Corporation employed here.  We are not the only ones waking up.  It’s just too bad that the British Parliament is as ignorant, apparently, as the “US” Congress.

It’s complete, obvious, nonsensical blather to talk about or accept an unwritten “flexible” contract of any kind,  yet otherwise perfectly sane people are spewing this out of their mouths on the BBC and broadcasting it.  Something that isn’t written down and which is “flexible”— to be defined however one Party or another wishes to define it at any given time, is worthless.

So they are admitting, apparently without realizing it, that their “constitution” is worthless.

They are also describing Britain as a “constitutional democracy”.  No, no, no, no….. Britain is not and has never been a “constitutional democracy”.  It is a limited constitutional monarchy.

Notice the difference: constitutional democracy versus constitutional monarchy.

See? It’s the same kind of game that has been played here.

America isn’t a “democracy” either.

America is governed by fifty independent self-governing state republics.

Internationally, these republics are operating as States.  These States act through a Federation of States known as The United States of America.

You see?  It’s the same claptrap about “democracy” in Britain as it is here.  It’s the same bunch of lies and the same game plan of criminals usurping against the lawful government in Britain as it is here and elsewhere.

We are in the presence of a global commercial conspiracy, which has used the “Territorial” which means “Commonwealth” Governments to implement their schemes, and which has arbitrarily defined all those territorial governments as “democracies”.

So what is a democracy?  It’s a Greek (Helles) institution of Mob Rule.

If 51% out of 100 such “citizens” want to eat your liver, they consider it perfectly legal to do so, though it will never be lawful.

Acting upon their principal of Mob Rule, they disrespect everyone and everything, including the property rights of others, and they behave as pirates and parasites on land and sea.

Most alarmingly, if 51% of their population wants to sit on their butts and receive everything for free, they think they are well-within their rights to rob and enslave the remaining 49% to accomplish their desired end.

The problem for all these secretive self-proclaimed democracies is that they are all organized as corporations and have no natural right to exist.

The further problem for them is that they have never in the history of any of these countries that they claim to rule over ever faced a Public Plebiscite or received a Public Mandate — that is, they’ve never proven to have a 51% majority in favor of anything they have proposed.

So even as self-proclaimed democracies all of their actions have been completely illegitimate and criminal in nature, and even a government by Mob Rule cannot be asserted.

So what do we have in control of Britain?  The same kind of criminal corporate government that has usurped against the lawful government in America.

If you look around, you find the same thing in France, in Germany, in Sweden, in Japan…..all over the world, all these countries proudly and ignorantly claiming to be democracies haven’t got a clue what it means and their governments don’t have a mandate to rule as a democracy, either.

Japan is supposed to function as a constitutional monarchy, not a constitutional democracy.

Find me a record anywhere showing that the general population of any of these countries was fully informed about what a democracy is,  and given a straight up opportunity to adopt democracy as their form of government?  Show me proof that any of them have done so via a fully disclosed General Plebiscite Election.

You won’t find any such record, because democracy is a crappy form of government that allows the strong to act as predators against the weak, and naturally the predators didn’t want to give the victims an honest choice in the matter.

The Creeping Rot of the corporate criminals is everywhere, powered by banks drunk with digits and delusions.

And now, all over the world, the proverbial cows of this situation are coming home.

This has all been engineered behind the scenes by Papists and Freemasons; and, the Popes and the Roman Curia — who are the ones responsible under Ecclesiastical Law for oversight of all corporations on Earth and the Air Jurisdiction governing intellectual property in general — have obviously failed in their duty to liquidate corporations operating as crime syndicates.

This is how the Popes and the Roman Curia and the Holy See are involved in all of this.  It’s their responsibility to make sure that such things never happen, and yet, we wake up one morning and — “What, ho!”

Smell the English Breakfast Tea steaming in your cup.

There isn’t a legitimate democracy anywhere on Earth.  There are just a bunch of filthy dirty commercial corporations running their internal affairs “as” democracies, but even internally, they don’t have a mandate and are nothing but lawless mercenary pirate organizations.

The “UK Parliament” is the Board of Directors for the Territorial Government running the “United Kingdom” as a parliamentary democracy.

The fact is, that all that they really have any right to control are their own officers and employees, but they have usurped upon the government of the people of Britain in the same way as their counterparts in America, Germany, and elsewhere have usurped upon the rest of us.

They have pretended to be the government over the people of Britain and they have used the people and their assets as chattels backing their corporate debts in the same way that the “US” Congress has abused its employers.

And it is all nothing but crime.  It’s all Bushwah.  Constructive fraud.  Probate fraud.  False claims in commerce.

It has all been funded by criminal bankers and securities brokers and implemented and enforced by employee-owned and operated crime syndicates engaged in everything from commodity rigging, monopoly interests, human trafficking, drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, securities fraud, counterfeiting, inland piracy, unlawful conversion, treason, murder, money laundering, and more.

These quote-unquote corporate “democracies” don’t represent us, don’t represent the Brits, don’t represent the Germans, don’t represent the Japanese….all they represent are territorial corporations, corporate officials and corporate employees.

And forget the similarly constructed “municipal corporations” that serve municipal employees, which are plenary oligarchies — organizations of members of Parliaments and Congresses that claim to have the right to boss their employers around, enslave them, take their private property, and abuse them at will.  They are even worse, more criminal, and even less justifiable.

Yes, you read that right and if you have been following along, you are now realizing that the UK Parliament has been functioning in precisely the same way and status as the “US” Congress and the United Kingdom Parliament has been functioning in the same way and territorial status as the United States Parliament.

Both these entities are nothing but government employee corporations, run by government employees, for government employees.

Was it you intention to give your body, soul, land, home, businesses and everything else to your employees?

Did you knowingly let them declare you “legally dead” and allow them to work a probate fraud against your interests, so that they could better control you and offer your assets — all of them including your children — as chattel belonging to their corporations, available to support their spending?

Did you ever knowingly agree to that?

Did you elect to participate in a corporation acting as a government, operated as a democracy?

Did you knowingly consent and agree to “gift” these organizations with your private property?

Are you sick of this criminality, promoted by people on your payroll?

So, what do we do?  Looks like the Queen just made her first move as the Pope’s Regent by “suspending” Parliament.  And which “Parliament” did she suspend?  The Territorial Parliament.

Most of the people participating in this fiasco are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing.  They believe that they are part of a legitimate Parliament elected by the People of Great Britain, representing their respective land jurisdiction counties.

Their first clue that this is not true is the word “district” being attached to everything, as in the preposterous misnomer and oxymoron, “County District Court” .

Get a clue, folks, any “County” that is in a “District” is not a County by definition.

It’s time to educate everyone and put an end to this archaic and nasty system of Commercial Feudalism, beginning with the conversion of all government corporations to Non-Profit Corporations, the conversion of all C-Corps to B-Corps, and the return of all titles and land patents to the counties and people of each country, plus the profits and credit they are owed.

After that, following a transition period needed to re-educate everyone, let me suggest that no government corporation ever be allowed to operate for any purpose to profit itself, and no corporation traded on a public stock exchange  ever again be issued a “for profit only” charter, nor given bankruptcy protection out of public funds.

It’s time for mammoth reform of all these operations on a worldwide basis.

As we begin the necessary changes, yes, hold onto your hats, but don’t be afraid.  These are your employees.  It’s time you reminded them of the facts.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 30 19 Clarification for All



 By Anna Von Reitz

The United States of America was formed on September 9, 1776. The Confederacy of States of States was formed March 1, 1781.

The United States of America, therefore, as opposed to the “united” States of America was indeed formed almost five years earlier.

September 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, plus three months into 1781 equals –if you want to be picky, four years and three months, affecting six calendar years 1776 to 1781.

Am I getting the point through to all and everyone? The Federation is older than the Confederation by years and not only that, the Federation is composed of independent sovereign States, not business entities called “States of States”.

Am I making myself perfectly clear?

Is everyone now understanding what is going on here?

We are declaring our birthright political status and casting off any “presumption” that we volunteered to adopt any foreign citizenship at all.

We are assembling our actual independent and sovereign States, not a business organization set up to sell us services.

Does everyone get that through their heads now?

As such, Mr. Trump, the Joint Chiefs and every man jack in the British Territorial United States of America is REQUIRED by International Treaty, International Trust, and International Commercial Service Contract to remove these Municipal and Administrative Courts from our soil, restrict the Municipal Government to its Constitutionally declared limit of the “ten miles square” granted to them, collapse the 500 mini-municipal districts which these treasonous corporations have attempted to overlay upon our land and soil, seize the offshore tax trusts formed “in our names” and the related CUSIP Bonds, and return all our assets including our land titles to us.

Don’t you all get it yet?

Our own dear military has at the highest levels, knowingly or unknowingly, followed orders under the False Presumption that the foreign Roman “Civil Government” set up merely to run the business of the Washington DC Municipality, was somehow magically converted into the “Civilian Government” of this country in our purported “absence”.

The two For-Hire Service Providers were running amok, securing credit under False Pretenses in our names and using our assets as collateral purportedly backing “our” debts—while in fact, they were spending our money and credit however they wished, with no consequences for them, until we stood up and said — WTH?

This is the same situation as a credit card hacker stealing your identity, accessing your credit, and going on a spending spree. Does everyone see that?

Because the British Territorial Government was allowed to exercise some of the Delegated Powers belonging to The United States of America, it was also allowed to conduct business under a variation of our name — “the” United States of America.

Many people were naturally confused and did not notice nor understand the difference between The United States of America and the United States of America.

This would be like John Reynolds Jackson being mistaken for John R. Jackson, or any other such Similar Names Deceit.

This is the game these corporations have been playing for 150 years and it is nothing but the most facile kind of con game. It’s time to end it. Now.

Agents of the British Territorial entity exercising some of our Delegated Powers and doing business under our name as “the” United States of America” have been snatching American babies and trafficking them into their foreign territorial jurisdiction for decades, deliberately misidentifying them as British Territorial Dependents and cashiering their Good Names and assets for use backing the debts of the British Crown Corporation.

Wake up.

The British Monarchs who are obligated to act as our Trustees in this venue have allowed this to go on in Gross Breach of Trust.

The Popes have similarly allowed this in Gross Breach of Trust.

The Lord Mayor of London has conducted commercial “war” against Treaty Allies and innocent Internationally Protected Persons and is an International Criminal of the Highest Order.

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

We are not chattel.

We are not here to be picked apart by the Creditors of pirates who have been grossly and without merit pretending to “represent” us.

So now we are engaged in unraveling this criminal enterprise and calling down the Pope, the Queen, and the Lord Mayor, and the United Nations —for all the world to see–and we are flatly demanding the return of our purloined property and actual assets to us, not to them “acting” as our “representatives”.

Obviously, they are not trustworthy. Period.

They have breached their Trust with the American States and People and the only sane option is to return it all whence it came, to our Lawful and actual government which is now assembling under the organizational heading of The American States Assembly.

The States have been called to Assemble and conduct business by The United States of America formed September 9, 1776 and by the Hereditary Head of State under whose Great Seals the International Ship of State sails. This is right and proper and verifiable and cannot be contested or overturned.

There is no record nor verifiable provenance of any organization operating as The United States of America 1781 related to this country at all.

It appears to be an attempt to latch onto the long defunct Confederacy of business organizations dba States of America which was formed March 1, 1781, by a group of religious fanatics also operating as The Reign of Heaven Society.

The noxious history and nature and intentions of that organization calling itself The Reign of Heaven Society began when it plagiarized the work of Frank O’Collins, twisted it, and re-presented it as the basis of this elitist religious sect.

Well, we’ve all had enough of that, haven’t we?

Thus far the Perpetrators behind all this Gross Mismanagement and Criminal Neglect have tried to maintain control of our assets by handing them to “Third Party Philanthropists”– Wolfgang Struck, Kim Goguen, Karen Hudes, etc., — and ginned up various stories as to how and why these persons suddenly control our assets and have any right to dispose of them.

The simple truth is that the banks stole the assets, the US military stole them back, and now nobody knows how to both control their release (which is necessary in terms of flooding the markets and collapsing everything) and yet, return them to the actual lawful owners.

Another part of the problem is that lawful assets can only belong to lawful persons, and none of those responsible are acting in the capacity of lawful persons. They are all acting as Legal Persons — and so was Prince Philip when he received all the purloined “Life Force Value Annuities” owed to Americans and Canadians.

They appoint the presumed-to-be Philanthropist that they control and pretend that this Person has some natural inherited claim to sit in this position– and it is all just an infantile smoke screen for what has actually gone on here.

Their attempts to appoint a Third Party Philanthropist to handle the distribution hasn’t sold, so they have tried other means. They’ve tried to justify the Dead Baby Scam. Nobody is buying that, either.

They have fronted a GCR, but that won’t work for the reasons I have already outlined. Doing it admits that they CAN do it, and that they are criminals. Exit that.

They’ve tried a new round of the old Justinian Deception via introducing “PARSE SYNTAX” as the new Legalese. That isn’t working, either.

So now they are back to the Ye Olde Scottish Corporation trick of trying to use a similarly and deceitfully named corporation —in the present situation, a Private Membership Association calling itself “The United States of America 1781”— to snare unwary people into more undisclosed contracts created under conditions of deliberate constructive fraud with intent to deceive.

We are calling them out on all of it.

What needs to happen is for the Pope to get rid of the Freemasons acting as “Worshipful Grandmasters” in the old Pontifical System — which is supposed to be gone and isn’t— who are still dictating to elected Territorial Governors. He also needs to engineer the removal of Mike Pence from the office of Vice President.

Unfortunately, “Vice President” has come to mean “the President in charge of Vice” as in “Vice Squad”.

You have to give them credit for having a sardonic sense of humor, but, we don’t need any vice here, much less a CEO in charge of vice-related business enterprises, thank you.

Now with that in mind, take a close look at who has been serving the Pontifical Vice Apparatus in your country? Mike Pence, Creepy Joe…. all the way back to LBJ, who, yes, was largely responsible for the murder of President Kennedy. Take a bow, if you knew that back in 1963.

Next, look at all the “Lieutenant Governors”. These vermin have ruled from behind the throne, the better to have someone else to blame. Has it ever made sense to you that we have all these obviously quasi-military offices in plain view? Lieutenant Governor? What to Hell is a “Lieutenant Governor” or a “Tax Commissioner” or even worse, an “Attorney General”? Where are their offices defined in any legitimate original constitution?

Nowhere. None. These Vermin have no authority related to us. These offices have existed and continued to exist merely as a result of public ignorance and failure to monitor our “service providers”.

Francis also needs to close down the Municipal COURTS throughout this country, voluntarily and peacefully.

If he fails to take these actions he is obviously not acting in good faith.

Meantime, the Queen needs to come forward and exercise our Delegated Power “for us” in fact, to restructure the operations of the US Navy to do its job for us instead of being engaged in worldwide crime syndicate activities benefiting the British Crown. No more using it to transport drugs all around the Pacific Rim and Mediterranean and then passing their Operations Bills on to us. No more targeting American soil and American people as “domestic” targets for Geoengineering and Scalar Tech weapons, either.

She also needs to arrest the Lord Mayor and oust his peculiar religion from British Shores, if she has the sense of a Dung Beetle and wishes to retain any credibility for the limited monarchy she is responsible for.

The Holy See is already committed in Public to prosecution of the Temple of Baal and its promoters- even though the Holy See privately deals extensively with the pirates and fraud artists running these so-called “secular programs” the consequences of overtly supporting them against the demands of our lawful government would further endanger the Church and its credibility.

All the rats are now in the same basic position they were in 1300. Their choices are the same now as then. Prosecute the Satan worshipers or be prosecuted themselves.

So the Satan Worshiping vermin have proposed to leave America and set up their new base of operations in China where they have long controlled the Drug Trade, but the Chinese, Indian, and Afghani Governments that have been enslaved to the British-organized Triangle Trade, can see the situation now and have other ideas.

To put it very bluntly, the time has come for actual reform and honest government throughout the world. All governments are supposed to be functioning as non-profit service organizations monitored closely by the people they serve.

When you think about it, such a goal is stupidly simple to achieve once people understand what the goal is, what their role as oversight monitors requires, are given a means to enforce their oversight —- and assuming that they are motivated to do their part.

If the prospect of being slaves to drug and sex crazed Satan Worshipers isn’t motivation enough to wake up and get moving –I don’t know what is.

And that is literally what is going on and what is at stake here.

Wake up.

Stop nit-picking and dawdling.

Get on your feet. Declare your proper political status. Record it. Join your State Assembly or if your State is one of the few that still does not have an official State Assembly, form one now.

There is one legitimate government left standing in the international jurisdiction, one and only one that actually does represent the People of this country. The name of that organization is The United States of America. It was formed September 9, 1776.

The United States of America operates and sails its vessels in international jurisdiction under the auspices of the Norman Kings of England and France, and in particular, under the Great Seals of William Belcher, an American in fact, also known as The Belle Cher, one of the Belles Kings of Gaul as well as being a sovereign in his own right in England by lawful heritage established and settled in 1087 A.D.

William Belcher’s kinsmen, The LaFayette, came to his aid in 1776. And the Belles and Pelles will still answer against the Helles kings, if need be.

The Belles and Pelles of this generation stand behind teaching the People to Self-Govern and to honor the True King of Heaven, Our Creator, who lives in the hearts of all Mankind forever. Any other presumption must be disallowed.

   See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 28 19 International Protest, Claim, and Counter – Claim



 By Anna Von Reitz

International Protest, Claim, and Counter-Claim

Sent to Pope Francis: 27 August 2019: 23:06….

International Protest, Claim, and Counter-Claim Under Public International Notice for Pope Francis, President Donald Trump, the Lord Mayor of London, the Government of Westminster, Queen Elizabeth II and all other Interested Principals and Parties:

This is your International Notice of Constructive Fraud ongoing on the sea and in the air:

We are the People of The United States of America.  We know who we are and when our Federation of States was formed: September 9, 1776, almost five (5) years before any commercial organization of confederated states of states was formed March 1, 1776; we know our jurisdiction and the nature of our States as the Donors of all Delegated Powers ever received by the Municipal United States Government and also any such Powers exercised in our names by the Territorial United States of America.

Tonight we have been informed of yet another Interloper deliberately infringing upon our Unregistered Trademarks and Copyrights in violation of International Law for the purpose of commercial entrapment and fraud.

The guilty Parties have launched a “Private Membership Association” called the Reign of Heaven Society, based on plagiarizing the work and infringing upon the copyrights of Frank O’Collins; they have similarly attempted to infringe upon our recorded copyrights and trademarks and sought to promote a deliberate confusion via a Similar Names Deceit between their additional Private Member Association calling itself The United States of America 1781 and our unincorporated Federation of Independent States doing business as The United States of America since September of 1776.

Though I have no reason to suppose that Pope Francis is unaware of basic International Law, including the fact that possession by pirates does not change ownership of assets, I must remind him of his responsibility as the Keeper of Corporations under Ecclesiastical Law, and bring this matter to his attention and that of the Roman Curia for correction and must also demand the dissolution of this would-be imposter organization which has no actual or historical relationship with our States or our Federation of States doing business as The United States of America.

We also wish to make it clear that The United States of America represents the independent and complete and physically-defined States belonging to the People of this country, and neither we nor our member States are any kind of “state of state” at all.

As States and as a Lawful Federation of States, we cannot be defined as any enemy of any state of state organization and may not be mischaracterized as a state of state organization ourselves; we occupy a complete and separate jurisdiction as natural people and as Lawful Persons owed every respect and protection under international law.

We are permanently and properly domiciled on the land and soil of our States and have no cause nor reason to reside in any inchoate state of state at all. Any paperwork or delusion that we have left our native land and soil, abandoned our birthright for proxy benefits or otherwise knowingly allowed any such legal presumptions must be set aside and disallowed; we accept all gifts, waive all unearned benefits, and act as Prudent Men.

We do not inhabit nor reside in any inchoate incorporated state of state at all, and as we are the Beings in Possession of the States, we are not stateless, either.  We claim our inheritance as the living sons and daughters of our Creator, formed by an Act of the True God at the moment of fertilization and as true heirs of every bit of DNA and matter belonging to us by His Gift, including claim upon every beneficial interest in the estate thus created, including any estate left behind by our dead amnion being misrepresented as a “person” and as an “infant decedent” and then used as a device to promote fraud and identity theft against our living estate and Given Name.

We are not amused by any of these attempts to mischaracterize us or entrap innocent people under false premises and unconscionable contracting processes — not the Dead Baby Scam, not the Justinian Deception, and not another deceitful attempt to misrepresent our Federation nor our States nor our People via the employment of deceitfully similar names adopted by “membership organizations” or commercial corporations or any other kind of inchoate Legal Entities at all.

Our Social Contract within our States has been established since 1776, and any and all obligations shared with the British Government and with the Holy See have been set upon the international record since 1783; there has been no valid alteration in any provision since 1861: “This Act shall not effect any right thus previously established”.

Must we remind His Holiness of the obligation of the Holy See to strictly limit its governmental services activities to the ten miles square of the District of Columbia?

And the further obligation of the Holy See and its servants to drop any and all frivolous claims to the effect that our people are “citizens” of any fictional legal entity?

We wish this to be done, and to be done now, in this moment and forever.

We are the Children of the True God, not Children of Men; we command the Angels and command the Devils, too.

Remove these atrocities from our presence.

Liquidate the phony 500 municipal districts which have been overlaid upon our land and soil. Remove the Municipal and so-called Administrative COURTS that have been established in violation of Our Sacred Covenants.

Remove the false claims to own our souls or any other right, title, trademark, copyright, patent or property interest rightly belonging to us.

Release all bonds and set our people free.

Cease all false claims that any of us are commonwealth property, paupers, warrant officers, municipal volunteers, employees, dependents, assets, or mere matter subject to the whim of any man, archon, seraph, ghost, demon, spirit, or goblin.

On your immortal soul, Francis, these outrages must cease.

We demand the prompt liquidation of this THING calling itself by a name deceptively similar to our own — and we note that there never was and is not now any valid entity called “The United States of America 1781” associated with this country or with this nation.

We also demand the cessation of any attempt to contract with this inchoate entity as if it represented our Federation of States or held any authority related to us, our Powers, our States or our Nation.  “The United States of America 1781” is a foreign entity of dubious origin seeking to substitute itself for our lawful Government in violation of international law, treaty, and commercial contracts which the Holy See owes to us alone.

Living people are not sheep to be herded from pen to pen, fraud to fraud, delusion to delusion—- and Lawful Persons are owed their due recognition, respect, and protection.  The True Heirs of the Kingdom have returned; let no man or spirit presume otherwise and let there be no more testing deployed against non-domestic targets.

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

c/o Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska  99652

Non-domestic: Private copyright:

4711 Birchwood Road,

Big Lake, Alaska

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 29 19 Red Alert! Red Alert!



 By Anna Von Reitz

Red Alert!

Constructive Fraud underway!

The United States of America is an unincorporated Federation of States formed September 9, 1776.

The united States of America was a chartered Confederation of Federal States of States formed March 1, 1781.

Everyone get those facts firmly ingrained in your heads and if you remember no other dates in your lives, remember these two key bits of information.

The United States of America = Federation of States = September 9, 1776.

The united States of America = Confederation of States of States = March 1, 1781.

Now we have a bogus “Private Membership Association” promoting itself as something called “The United States of America 1781” and claiming to “be” The United States of America.


They are claiming something that is literally impossible.

Why?  Because The United States of America wasn’t formed in 1781.

These people are nutcases. Ignorant nutcases. And they are out to enslave you by getting you to sign up for their bogus private association, just like “the United States” got your parents to unwittingly sign up as “US Citizens”.

This is more Roman Catholic Church crappola. Just read the way that these vicious criminals have stolen the work of Frank O’Collins and claimed it as their own — infringed on his copyright, and created a False Church and called this Satanic Organization The Reign of Heaven Society.

Reign of Hell is more like it!

These doppelgangers must be stopped.  And Sarah Westfall and John J. Singleton must be warned and advised of the facts.

Under international law, possession by pirates does not change ownership.

The name and the trademarks of the actual Federation of States doing business as The United States of America are still ours and we lodge extreme displeasure and international protest that any organization is misrepresenting itself as any characterization of this United States of America so as to entrap and mislead unwary Americans into undisclosed membership “agreements”.

Part of the stated objective of this elitist crime syndicate from the very first of its creepy declarations on the internet was to form a hierarchy just like the Roman Catholic Church and use it for the same purposes.  Well, we all know that the Roman Catholic Church has been infiltrated top to bottom with Satanists and that the Freemasons have worked in league with those elements to destroy all that is decent in the world.

There must be an immediate recognition that this evil and illegal organization calling itself “The United States of America 1781” is a Big, Fat Lie and that it is operating under constructive fraud and trying to deliberately confuse itself with our nation.

Attack it and bring it down.  If you have registered a “residency” in it, immediately withdraw and put your permanent domicile on the land and soil of your native State of the Union.  Remove yourselves immediately!

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 28 19 Sometimes the Things I Write About Homework



 By Anna Von Reitz

Yes, sometimes the things I write about go right over people’s heads, and “my fellow Americans” are left standing there scratching their ears and looking very dull indeed.  It’s not their fault.  They aren’t stupid.  They have been deliberately un-educated and left in the dark by swanky criminals bent on making use of them.

So the rest of the world will have to understand this about Americans and be patient while we catch up; once alerted and motivated, as everyone knows, we can be hell on wheels— one of the ironic consequences of being used as gun fodder for a hundred and fifty years.

There’s a part of us that really doesn’t give an EFF.  That comes in handy for fighting evil— once we have a clear view of the Enemy.  So, gang way.

I am sharing two articles from the not-so mainstream media, which I recommend that you read in order one after the other, and then, connect the dots.

The first article from Zero Hedge is about HSBC and its role as “the” premier money-laundering agency for the British-operated Opium Trade in the Far East, India, and Afghanistan.

It will be a shock for most Americans to realize that there has been a “Triangle Trade” in drugs similar to the Triangle Trade in slaves that existed between New England, Barbados, and Africa.  The Drug Trade dates from the same era as The Slave Trade.  It simply occurred in a different part of the world.

It will also be a shock to realize that India, China, and Afghanistan have been used and abused by the British to create, sustain, and yes, even enforce, this illicit drug trade despite its heinous and destructive nature and despite all the hypocritical anti-drug posturing of the western governments.

The Zero Hedge article describes the “traditional” money laundering system of HSBC and the Swiss Cartels.

The second article by Layman’s Law describes what is being done now, and how the Vermin are using their bogus Foreclosure Mill and private mercenary security forces mislabeled “Law Enforcement” and acting under color of law as “STATE OF….” officials  to unlawfully convert their worthless paper generated from drugs, slave trading, gambling, and other illicit activities into nice “clean” real estate assets in America:

This has to be stopped by shutting down the Municipal and Administrative COURTS that are enforcing and running “the laundry”, and then by shutting down the banks and secondary “mortgage servicing companies” that are making the false claims and corrupting the course of justice.

Make no mistake, this is Super Big Business, and it represents generations of corruption by the British Crown. Literally millions of people are involved worldwide, from Kandahar to Kuwait, from Persia to Pittsburgh.

And the only way it can be stopped is for many more millions of people to wake up and take action.  It’s either that, or everyone on Earth will be enslaved to criminals and criminal enterprises, and life will not be worth living.

You might as well hold your noses and jump.

What you will see is how the same British and European criminals have raped and pillaged and abused the entire rest of the world, including America, and also how they have used America as their Whipping Boy.

You will understand once and for all that “the US” is not America, that the British Crown is not the British Monarchy, that the UN CORP is not the United Nations, that “the” United States is not The United States, and that “the” United States of America was never The United States of America, either.

You will also understand exactly how and why the rest of the world has been misled into hating “America” — how they have misidentified us so that we are mistaken as “the US”, and how “the US” has in turn been used as a vicious club by British Fobs and European bankers to subdue and defraud and oppress and cheat and corrupt the entire rest of the world.

We, Americans, have been unknowingly used as their patsies and proxies in place of “The Raj” to do all this harm, so of course we get painted with The Ugly Brush.  Of course, other nations hate and fear us.

This is why you’ve got people in Tehran and throughout the world ignorantly shouting, “Death to America!” — Because the British Creatures and their Municipal City of Rome Counterparts certainly don’t want the blame for their actions and schemes coming back to them, do they?

The nasty little cowards would much rather play the part of sanctimonious and thoroughly “decent” people, and let you take the blame and pay the costs of their war-mongering and criminality. Watch on:

Link 1:    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-16/hsbc-bank-secret-origins-laundering-worlds-drug-money

Link 2:   https://laymanslaw.home.blog/how-to-steal-and-launder-trillions-in-american-foreclosures/?fbclid=IwAR2BaHqQg9BE_SP1K0F9bME8mEJA_amlY-W7BzCRmGdQtxRKIPJbtKA_HJY

Come on, people!  You can do it!

Daylight in the Swamps!

Spend three minutes and pay special attention to what Godfrey Bloom has to tell you in this one, at the four minute mark:


Spend another couple minutes and see what the former head of the IRS has to say about the “voluntary” income tax that we all purportedly “volunteered” to pay though most of us have no “federal income” at all:


Spread the word and take the action.  Declare your actual birthright political status and take a stand.  Push back.  Join your State Assembly.  Organize your civilian courts to replace the Municipal and Administrative “COURTS”. Alert every Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff and Law Enforcement Officer. Tell every US Marshal — the Continental Marshals already know. Tell everyone you know in the military.  Tell the members of the phony Congresses.

Give them no “plausible deniability” — tell them and let them all know what’s going down.

Inform them, and if anyone complains, just tell them that you are doing your public duty to inform them of crimes being committed, and that if you didn’t do your public duty you would be an accomplice to those crimes —just as they will be if they don’t get the lead out and put a stop to it.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

They Even Lied Successfully to the Russians



 By Anna Von Reitz

And the Russians are hard sells to spoof.

I find it fascinating.  What has actually happened is that there are in fact two factions of bankers represented by the Federal Reserve and the IMF, respectively.

The Federal Reserve is run by old-line Sephardic Spanish, French, Italian and more recently, Israeli banks.

The IMF is run by upstart Ashkenazi and military-industrialist commercial bankers.

Both of these groups have been acting as crime syndicates and predators, and not because they are Jewish — it’s because they are bankers, and as bankers, they work for governments and militaries which, to some extent they control, because the bankers are charged with finding ways to finance both the politicians and the militaries of all these countries.

This became very difficult to do early last century for two reasons: (1) gold is an inelastic commodity, and (2) a very large portion of the gold backing the world’s monetary system disappeared between 1898 and 1907.  It simply disappeared.

We now know that it went to the Philippines and that it was cashiered there by a now long-defunct Scottish commercial corporation doing business “as” The United States of America — Incorporated.  The gold was transported to the Philippines by the British-controlled U.S. Navy.  It was our gold and the gold of other countries that trusted our banks, and therefore, deposited gold here.

The Philippines were supposed to become– for the Bank of England and Bank of Scotland and Bank of France crooks responsible for all this– a sort of alternative to Switzerland as a banking stronghold. It was to be a new epicenter for international banking —-and, for continued fraud and theft and “leveraging” of currency commodities.

They experienced some difficulties when the Japanese took the Philippines during World War II, but for the most part, it was too hard for the Japanese to transport the gold under war time conditions and while they managed to set up a couple secondary centers in Indonesia and Hong Kong and various stashes around the Pacific Rim, including the Japanese homeland, most of the gold remained in the Philippines.

Douglas MacArthur could be sure that he would return.  He knew that with that much gold sitting there up for grabs, no expense of men or materials would be too great.

Did MacArthur know that he was sitting on stolen American gold and gold stolen from private citizens and other countries from around the world who deposited their gold in our banks?  Probably.  But he was also no doubt given some plausible Cock and Bull story to explain away the circumstance, too.

This has been the long history of The Mess: honorable men are lied to by those in positions of authority, and acting upon these lies, they make wrong assumptions and take heinously incorrect actions.

As the Zoroastrians observed Millennia ago, without right thoughts, it is impossible to take right actions.

So, what was the ultimate “Hundred Year Plan” of these hucksters?

They would collect by all means possible, all the gold in the world that they could mine or otherwise lay their hands on, hoard it, and when the time was ripe and they had siphoned off all real and/or perceived value of the fiat currencies, they would purposefully limit the supply of gold and force the grandsons of the men they stole the gold from in the first place to pay exorbitant amounts of resources and labor to buy it back.

Gold, just before the Crash, sold for @ $30 in silver per ounce. What does it sell for today?  At least $1000 in oil per ounce.  That difference between $30 and $1000 for the same amount of gold, is what the crooks were (and are) aiming to cash in on.  THAT is what it is all about: (1) limiting access to gold; (2) driving the price of gold up as much as possible.

They did the same thing with oil and they are trying to do the same thing with water.  It is always the same.  Find a commodity that everyone either needs or that they believe is supremely valuable, corner the market, choke off the supply, and charge up the wazoo for it.

It’s boring.  It’s infantile.  It’s crooked.  And in the end, it’s insane, because it creates bogus shortages of things that are in fact abundant.  It leaves everyone on Earth dealing from a stacked deck and living in a purposefully skewed reality dominated by artificially created shortages.

No matter how they create these bogus shortages or what commodity is targeted, the modus operandi is always the same.  And the people of the Earth always suffer for it.

So now we have Russian Generals hopping around up and down on one leg and calling Donald Trump an “economic hit man” and pointing fingers at “the Jews”.

The Jews have been bankers since the seventh century BCE for the simple reason that although their religion forbids them to charge interest on loans to other Jews, it allows them to charge interest on loans (practice usury) made to Gentiles.

Since the advent of Islam, Muslims have been pressed into service as bankers for similar reasons, except that Muslims who are dishonest face moral and physical punishment within their own communities— hence, on average, Muslims make more honest bankers.

That’s why so many high-flying Jews keep their money in Muslim banks. Muslim banks are safer and Muslim bankers are more honest.  Go figure.

And that is part of the reason that Iran is being targeted.  Word has it that vast amounts of gold and other precious metal and jewel assets have been stashed by Muslim bankers in Iran.

And that is why Iran is being misrepresented by the Western Press Corps as a dangerous Aggressor — when it hasn’t fought a war outside its borders in over 200 years.

It’s time to grow up.

It’s time to look at what is in front of our faces.

The bankers are a problem because we let them be a problem.

We let the politicians and military be a problem, too.

They work for us.  They get their pay from us, albeit via the Queen or the Pope acting as middlemen.  Their armies and navies are built on the backs of our sons and daughters.

What happens if we all — Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Americans, and yes, Brits — all wake up and face the facts?

It’s all a crooked, violent, destructive, criminal racket built on lies and secretive enslavement of living people, theft of their assets, and created shortages of commodities that are in fact abundant.

This situation exists because we have all been sitting on our rumps, gullibly trusting our governments and bought-and-paid-for news commentators.

Mr. Trump isn’t an economic hit man. He’s a beleaguered corporate CEO trying to administer an unimaginably huge bankruptcy, which is predicated in turn on an unimaginably huge probate fraud —-and if he fails, not only this country but the entire rest of the world will be thrown into WWIII — a cataclysm that nobody will survive.

The American States and People are owed the return of approximately $387 billion in gold, plus interest, from the World Bank.  We are owed the return of the control of the Philippines and Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariannas Islands –which were all purchased “for” us, with our money.  We are owed — at a minimum — $23 trillion dollars as the American National Credit.

And we are owed nothing but thanks from the rest of the world which has benefited itself at our expense for 150 years.

Those are the facts.

So, now what do we do with them?

We declare and record our proper political status, we boot up our States of the Union, we elect our Justices of the Peace, we serve as Jurors, actual County Sheriffs, Land Marshals — aka, Continental Marshals — and we reboot our civilian courts.

We demand the closure of the Municipal and “Administrative” COURTS and the end of all presumptions against our private and public property assets, the collapse of all so-called “infant decedent estates” and the return of all assets to the lawful owners.

We object loudly to U.S. Navy and NATO attempts to create a worldwide drought in order to make water a “strategic commodity”.

We pay attention to what these cretins are really doing behind our backs.

We get to the bottom of who owns and operates the corporation doing business as the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

We grab these miscreants by the shorthairs and hang them upside down until they call “Uncle”.

It’s all simple enough, not rocket science at all.  And all it takes is for the people of this world to wake up, declare their proper political status, and take action, action, action — and those actions to not include begging these vermin for more “treats” like trained dogs.

No, we don’t “petition” them for anything.  We tell them what they are going to do as our deputies.  And if they don’t do their duty, they lose their contracts.

And that, darlings, is the only way to deal with out of control commercial corporations — pull their contracts and charters, un-staff their offices, sell their stock, expose their dirt, arrest their officers if they are guilty of crimes, boycott their products, sue them for non-performance in your own courts of law, and stop being chumps andmarks.

The real economic “hit men” are operating Municipal and Administrative COURTS in this country and around the world.  That’s why these COURTS have to be shut down and replaced by actual civilian courts from here to Dusseldorf.

These COURTS are being used as private debt collection agencies and they are being used to sue the actual Creditors of these Perpetrators.  Just as we told you all — these vermin borrow from and then murder their Creditors, so that they don’t have to pay them back.  We recently published absolute proof of this fact by ‘their own’ admission.

This is what happened to the Jews in Germany, because they were holding the largest amount of the Nazi Government’s debt, and this is what the Perpetrators of this “System” have planned to happen in America, too.

Take a look around, people.  There are more than 800 FEMA camps in this country and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of Municipal “Agencies” —- is it worth your time and effort to pay attention and get involved in running your own government?

Or are you just going to sit there and wait for whatever comes?

It’s time for a vast outreach of people-to-people around the globe, all working together to end this madness, and nobody has more fat in the fire than the Jewish and Muslim bankers who have been used to set up and operate this “System”.

Now, I know that when you wake up and look at the actual situation, you will feel afraid of the Beast.  That is natural.  Just be aware that it is a Beast of your own creation, and that will help cut it down to size.  Like the shadows in your closet and the dust bunnies under you chair, it exists because you were asleep and let it accumulate.

And now, it’s time to wake up and clean house.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 27 19 Say, ‘Aye’, Patrick Byrne



By Anna Von Reitz

I never knew Patrick Byrne until yesterday.  More’s the pity.  He’s the former CEO of Overstock.com.  He resigned to protect the shareholders from any fall-out resulting from his testimony and evidence regarding the FBI knowingly and purposefully engaging in political espionage against both political parties.

Yes, you heard that right.  Both.  It wasn’t just Donald Trump.  Or Marco Rubio. Or Ted Cruz.  All of them were targets, but so was Hillary Clinton.

And the whole object of it?  Blackmail.  Trying to get some dirt on the candidates to use against them both before and AFTER the election….

You see, it isn’t just about who wins or loses, or which political party is online to do what bit of nastiness.  It’s about being able to blackmail them the whole time they are in office.

That’s what the FBI has been told its job is.

The career field agents were deeply shamed by the whole set up.  They knew what was going on and couldn’t stop it.  Their “superiors” were corrupt and giving them corrupt orders and they knew it.

But what do you do when you are a grunt with thirty years in the service, and nowhere else to go?

This is why it is so important for those of us who are outside the Federal Box to stand tall and stand guard and help those who are inside the box, because they are Americans, too.  And most of them are very loyal Americans.

One of the things that Patrick shared was a warning he received to the effect that if he came forward,  if he cared about America— he’d be killed and the Washington Establishment would grind him into dust.

I’d say it’s time we all turned on the headlights of this old jalopy called “America” and roared our V-8 Engines.  It’s the Beltway Denizens that are slated for the stamping mill, and their bosses, too.

The IRS, FBI, and BLM along with numerous other “Federal” Agencies — none of which have any constitutional right to exist — all of them are nothing but private subcontractors on our soil operating under color of law — are being run by a single renegade corporation calling itself the “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES”.

So who owns this eff-up?  Who are the board members directing this crap?  Who are the shareholders benefiting from it?

These are the people that killed LaVoy Finicum.  These are the vermin that made the Wildlife Refuge Occupation an “issue”.  These are the little lying sneak-thief cheat experts not doing their jobs– and sitting there fat and sassy, on our payroll, talking down to us.

These are the rodentia responsible for the mis-administration of the IRS/Internal Revenue Service. And now, these are the same people responsible for political espionage for the purpose of blackmail.

So who are they? Where are they chartered?  Where do the Board Members live?  What kind of car do they drive?  What kind of toilet paper do they use?  What kind of religion do they practice?  Who are the shareholders? What do the shareholders say about this?

How much more of this criminal crap goes on before they lose all those juicy “Federal” contracts?  And have their faces plastered on billboards and posted in Post Offices as criminals?

Hey!  All you researchers out there, all you legal eagles, all you Constitutional Sheriffs, all you Continental Marshals, all you US Marshals….. come on! Get the lead out!  This is a clear and present danger to our whole country.

If a Great-Grandma in a place like Big Lake, Alaska, could figure this out in ten minutes spent on a computer doing a multiple data-base search — what possible excuse do you have for standing there with your thumbs up your?

And when you get the answer and you are still too afraid to do anything about it, come to me.  I’ll be glad to show you how to nail hides to barn doors.  It’s an old-fashioned pioneer skill.

As for everyone else reading this, let’s show the Beltway Scum that cost Patrick Byrne his job what we think of them, by doing all our holiday shopping at Overstock.com.  Let’s also join in saying a prayer for this country and for  all of us.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 27 19 How Tyranny Came to America




by Joe Sobran

One of the great goals of education is to initiate the young into the conversation of their ancestors; to enable them to understand the language of that conversation, in all its subtlety, and maybe even, in their maturity, to add to it some wisdom of their own.

The modern American educational system no longer teaches us the political language of our ancestors. In fact our schooling helps widen the gulf of time between our ancestors and ourselves, because much of what we are taught in the name of civics, political science, or American history is really modern liberal propaganda. Sometimes this is deliberate. Worse yet, sometimes it isn’t. Our ancestral voices have come to sound alien to us, and therefore our own moral and political language is impoverished. It’s as if the people of England could no longer understand Shakespeare, or Germans couldn’t comprehend Mozart and Beethoven.

So to most Americans, even those who feel oppressed by what they call big government, it must sound strange to hear it said, in the past tense, that tyranny “came” to America. After all, we have a constitution, don’t we? We’ve abolished slavery and segregation. We won two world wars and the Cold War. We still congratulate ourselves before every ballgame on being the Land of the Free. And we aren’t ruled by some fanatic with a funny mustache who likes big parades with thousands of soldiers goose-stepping past huge pictures of his-self.

For all that, we no longer fully have what our ancestors, who framed and ratified our Constitution, thought of as freedom — a careful division of power that prevents power from becoming concentrated and unlimited. The word they usually used for concentrated power was consolidated — a rough synonym for fascist. And the words they used for any excessive powers claimed or exercised by the state were usurped and tyrannical. They would consider the modern “liberal” state tyrannical in principle; they would see in it not the opposite of the fascist, communist, and socialist states, but their sister.

If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they’d notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it — powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated. These were the words they used, and it’s a good idea for us to learn their language. They would say that we no longer live under the Constitution they wrote. And the Americans of a much later era — the period from Cleveland to Coolidge, for example — would say we no longer live even under the Constitution they inherited and amended.

I call the present system “Post–Constitutional America.” As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.

What’s worse is that our constitutional illiteracy cuts us off from our own national heritage. And so our politics degenerates into increasingly bitter and unprincipled quarrels about who is going to bear the burdens of war and welfare.

I don’t want to sound like an oracle on this subject. As a typical victim of modern public education and a misinformed citizen of this media-ridden country, I took a long time — an embarrassingly long time — to learn what I’m passing on. It was like studying geometry in old age, and discovering how simple the basic principles of space really are. It was the old story: In order to learn, first I had to unlearn. Most of what I’d been taught and told about the Constitution was misguided or even false. And I’d never been told some of the most elementary things, which would have saved me a tremendous amount of confusion.

The Constitution does two things. First, it delegates certain enumerated powers to the federal government. Second, it separates those powers among the three branches. Most people understand the secondary principle of the separation of powers. But they don’t grasp the primary idea of delegated and enumerated powers.

Consider this. We have recently had a big national debate over national health care. Advocates and opponents argued long and loud over whether it could work, what was fair, how to pay for it, and so forth. But almost nobody raised the basic issue: Where does the federal government get the power to legislate in this area? The answer is: Nowhere. The Constitution lists 18 specific legislative powers of Congress, and not a one of them covers national health care.

As a matter of fact, none of the delegated powers of Congress — and delegated is always the key word — covers Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or federal aid to education, or most of what are now miscalled “civil rights,” or countless public works projects, or equally countless regulations of business, large and small, or the space program, or farm subsidies, or research grants, or subsidies to the arts and humanities, or … well, you name it, chances are it’s unconstitutional. Even the most cynical opponents of the Constitution would be dumbfounded to learn that the federal government now tells us where we can smoke. We are less free, more heavily taxed, and worse governed than our ancestors under British rule. Sometimes this government makes me wonder: Was George III really all that bad?

Let’s be clear about one thing. Constitutional and unconstitutional aren’t just simple terms of approval and disapproval. A bad law may be perfectly constitutional. A wise and humane law may be unconstitutional. But what is almost certainly bad is a constant disposition to thwart or disregard the Constitution.

It’s not just a matter of what is sometimes called the “original intent” of the authors of the Constitution. What really matters is the common, explicit, unchallenged understanding of the Constitution, on all sides, over several generations. There was no mystery about it.

The logic of the Constitution was so elegantly simple that a foreign observer could explain it to his countrymen in two sentences. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “the attributes of the federal government were carefully defined [in the Constitution], and all that was not included among them was declared to remain to the governments of the individual states. Thus the government of the states remained the rule, and that of the federal government the exception.”

The Declaration of Independence, which underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God, and that the powers of the government come from the people. Let me repeat that: According to the Declaration of Independence, the rights of the people come from God, and the powers of the government come from the people. Unless you grasp this basic order of things, you’ll have a hard time understanding the Constitution.

The Constitution was the instrument by which the American people granted, or delegated, certain specific powers to the federal government. Any power not delegated was withheld, or “reserved.” As we’ll see later, these principles are expressed particularly in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, two crucial but neglected provisions of the Constitution.

Let me say it yet again: The rights of the people come from God. The powers of government come from the people. The American people delegated the specific powers they wanted the federal government to have through the Constitution. And any additional powers they wanted to grant were supposed to be added by amendment.

It’s largely because we’ve forgotten these simple principles that the country is in so much trouble. The powers of the federal government have multiplied madly, with only the vaguest justifications and on the most slippery pretexts. Its chief business now is not defending our rights but taking and redistributing our wealth. It has even created its own economy, the tax economy, which is parasitical on the basic and productive voluntary economy. Even much of what passes for “national defense” is a kind of hidden entitlement program, as was illustrated when President George Bush warned some states during the 1992 campaign that Bill Clinton would destroy jobs by closing down military bases. Well, if those bases aren’t necessary for our defense, they should be closed down.

Now of course nobody in American politics, not even the most fanatical liberal, will admit openly that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says and isn’t going to let it interfere with his agenda. Everyone professes to respect it — even the Supreme Court. That’s the problem. The U.S. Constitution serves the same function as the British royal family: it offers a comforting symbol of tradition and continuity, thereby masking a radical change in the actual system of power.

So the people who mean to do without the Constitution have come up with a slogan to keep up appearances: they say the Constitution is a “living document,” which sounds like a compliment. They say it has “evolved” in response to “changing circumstances,” etc. They sneer at the idea that such a mystic document could still have the same meanings it had two centuries ago, or even, I guess, sixty years ago, just before the evolutionary process started accelerating with fantastic velocity. These people, who tend with suspicious consistency to be liberals, have discovered that the Constitution, whatever it may have meant in the past, now means — again, with suspicious consistency — whatever suits their present convenience.

Do liberals want big federal entitlement programs? Lo, the Interstate Commerce Clause turns out to mean that the big federal programs are constitutional! Do liberals oppose capital punishment? Lo, the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” turns out to mean that capital punishment is unconstitutional! Do liberals want abortion on demand? Lo, the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, plus their emanations and penumbras, turn out to mean that abortion is nothing less than a woman’s constitutional right!

Can all this be blind evolution? If liberals were more religious, they might suspect the hand of Providence behind it! This marvelous “living document” never seems to impede the liberal agenda in any way. On the contrary: it always seems to demand, by a wonderful coincidence, just what liberals are prescribing on other grounds.

Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.

And notice that the parts of this “living document” don’t develop equally or consistently. The Court has expanded the meaning of some of liberalism’s pet rights, such as freedom of speech, to absurd lengths; but it has neglected or even contracted other rights, such as property rights, which liberalism is hostile to.

In order to appreciate what has happened, you have to stand back from all the details and look at the outline. What follows is a thumbnail history of the Constitution.

In the beginning the states were independent and sovereign. That is why they were called “states”: a state was not yet thought of as a mere subdivision of a larger unit, as is the case now. The universal understanding was that in ratifying the Constitution, the 13 states yielded a very little of their sovereignty, but kept most of it.

Those who were reluctant to ratify generally didn’t object to the powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government. But they were suspicious: they wanted assurance that if those few powers were granted, other powers, never granted, wouldn’t be seized too. In The Federalist, Hamilton and Madison argued at some length that under the proposed distribution of power the federal government would never be able to “usurp,” as they put it, those other powers. Madison wrote soothingly in Federalist No. 45 that the powers of the federal government would be “few and defined,” relating mostly to war and foreign policy, while those remaining with the states would be “numerous and indefinite,” and would have to do with the everyday domestic life of the country. The word usurpation occurs numberless times in the ratification debates, reflecting the chief anxiety the champions of the Constitution had to allay. And as a final assurance, the Tenth Amendment stipulated that the powers not “delegated” to the federal government were “reserved” to the separate states and to the people.

But this wasn’t enough to satisfy everyone. Well-grounded fears persisted. And during the first half of the nineteenth century, nearly every president, in his inaugural message, felt it appropriate to renew the promise that the powers of the federal government would not be exceeded, nor the reserved powers of the states transgressed. The federal government was to remain truly federal, with only a few specified powers, rather than “consolidated,” with unlimited powers.

The Civil War, or the War Between the States if you like, resulted from the suspicion that the North meant to use the power of the Union to destroy the sovereignty of the Southern states. Whether or not that suspicion was justified, the war itself produced that very result. The South was subjugated and occupied like a conquered country. Its institutions were profoundly remade by the federal government; the United States of America was taking on the character of an extensive, and highly centralized, empire. Similar processes were under way in Europe, as small states were consolidated into large ones, setting the stage for the tyrannies and gigantic wars of the twentieth century.

Even so, the three constitutional amendments ratified after the war contain a significant clause: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Why is this significant? Because it shows that even the conquerors still understood that a new power of Congress required a constitutional amendment. It couldn’t just be taken by majority vote, as it would be today. If the Congress then had wanted a national health plan, it would have begun by asking the people for an amendment to the Constitution authorizing it to legislate in the area of health care. The immediate purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for a proposed civil rights act.

But the Supreme Court soon found other uses for the Fourteenth Amendment. It began striking down state laws as unconstitutional. This was an important new twist in American constitutional law. Hamilton, in arguing for judicial review in Federalist No. 78, had envisioned the Court as a check on Congress, resisting the illicit consolidation or centralization of power. And our civics books still describe the function of checks and balances in terms of the three branches of the federal government mutually controlling each other. But in fact, the Court was now countermanding the state legislatures, where the principle of checks and balances had no meaning, since those state legislatures had no reciprocal control on the Court. This development eventually set the stage for the convulsive Supreme Court rulings of the late twentieth century, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade.

The big thing to recognize here is that the Court had become the very opposite of the institution Hamilton and others had had in mind. Instead of blocking the centralization of power in the federal government, the Court was assisting it.

The original point of the federal system was that the federal government would have very little to say about the internal affairs of the states. But the result of the Civil War was that the federal government had a great deal to say about those affairs — in Northern as well as Southern states.

Note that this trend toward centralization was occurring largely under Republican presidents. The Democrat Grover Cleveland was one of the last great spokesmen for federalism. He once vetoed a modest $10,000 federal grant for drought relief on grounds that there was no constitutional power to do it. If that sounds archaic, remember that the federal principle remained strong long enough that during the 1950s, the federal highway program had to be called a “defense” measure in order to win approval, and federal loans to college students in the 1960s were absurdly called “defense” loans for the same reason. The Tenth Amendment is a refined taste, but it has always had a few devotees.

But federalism suffered some serious wounds during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. First came the income tax, its constitutionality established by the Sixteenth Amendment; this meant that every U.S. citizen was now, for the first time, directly accountable to the federal government. Then the Seventeenth Amendment required that senators be elected by popular vote rather than chosen by state legislators; this meant that the states no longer had their own representation in Congress, so that they now lost their remaining control over the federal government. The Eighteenth Amendment, establishing Prohibition, gave the federal government even greater powers over the country’s internal affairs. All these amendments were ominous signs that federalism was losing its traditional place in the hearts, and perhaps the minds, of Americans.

But again, notice that these expansions of federal power were at least achieved by amending the Constitution, as the Constitution itself requires. The Constitution doesn’t claim to be a “living document.” It is written on paper, not rubber.

In fact the radicals of the early twentieth century despaired of achieving socialism or communism as long as the Constitution remained. They regarded it as the critical obstacle to their plans, and thought a revolution would be necessary to remove it. As The New Republic wrote: “To have a socialist society we must have a new Constitution.” That’s laying it on the line!

Unfortunately, the next generation of collectivists would be less candid in their contempt for the federal system. Once they learned to feign devotion to the Constitution they secretly regarded as obsolete, the laborious formality of amendment would no longer be necessary. They could merely pretend that the Constitution was on their side. After Franklin Roosevelt restaffed the Supreme Court with his compliant cronies, the federal government would be free to make up its own powers as it went along, thanks to the notion that the Constitution was a malleable “living document,” whose central meaning could be changed, and even reversed, by ingenious interpretation.

Roosevelt’s New Deal brought fascist-style central planning to America — what some call the “mixed economy” but Hilaire Belloc called the Servile State — and his highhanded approach to governance soon led to conflict with the Court, which found several of his chief measures unconstitutional. Early in his second term, as you know, Roosevelt retaliated by trying to “pack” the Court by increasing the number of seats. This power play alienated even many of his allies, but it turned out not to be necessary. After 1937 the Court began seeing things Roosevelt’s way. It voted as he wished; several members obligingly retired; and soon he had appointed a majority of the justices. The country virtually got a new Constitution.

Roosevelt’s Court soon decided that the Tenth Amendment was a “truism,” of no real force. This meant that almost any federal act was ipso facto constitutional, and the powers “reserved” to the states and the people were just leftovers the federal government didn’t want, like the meal left for the jackals by the satisfied lion. There was almost no limit, now, on what the federal government could do. In effect, the powers of the federal government no longer had to come from the people by constitutional delegation: they could be created by simple political power.

Roosevelt also set the baneful precedent of using entitlement programs, such as Social Security, to buy some people’s votes with other people’s money. It was both a fatal corruption of democracy and the realization of the Servile State in America. The class of voting parasites has been swelling ever since.

So the New Deal didn’t just expand the power of the federal government; that had been done before. The New Deal did much deeper mischief: it struck at the whole principle of constitutional resistance to federal expansion. Congress didn’t need any constitutional amendment to increase its powers; it could increase its own powers ad hoc, at any time, by simple majority vote.

All this, of course, would have seemed monstrous to our ancestors. Even Alexander Hamilton, who favored a relatively strong central government in his time, never dreamed of a government so powerful.

The Court suffered a bloody defeat at Roosevelt’s hands, and since his time it has never found a major act of Congress unconstitutional. This has allowed the power of the federal government to grow without restraint. At the federal level, “checks and balances” has ceased to include judicial review.

This is a startling fact, flying as it does in the face of the familiar conservative complaints about the Court’s “activism.” When it comes to Congress, the Court has been absolutely passive. As if to compensate for its habit of capitulation to Congress, the Court’s post–World War II “activism” has been directed entirely against the states, whose laws it has struck down in areas that used to be considered their settled and exclusive provinces. Time after time, it has found “unconstitutional” laws whose legitimacy had stood unquestioned throughout the history of the Republic.

Notice how total the reversal of the Court’s role has been. It began with the duty, according to Hamilton, of striking down new seizures of power by Congress. Now it finds constitutional virtually everything Congress chooses to do. The federal government has assumed myriads of new powers nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, yet the Court has never seriously impeded this expansion, or rather explosion, of novel claims of power. What it finds unconstitutional are the traditional powers of the states.

The postwar Court has done pioneering work in one notable area: the separation of church and state. I said “pioneering,” not praiseworthy. The Court has consistently imposed an understanding of the First Amendment that is not only exaggerated but unprecedented — most notoriously in its 1962 ruling that prayer in public schools amounts to an “establishment of religion.” This interpretation of the Establishment Clause has always been to the disadvantage of Christianity and of any law with roots in Christian morality. And it’s impossible to doubt that the justices who voted for this interpretation were voting their predilections.

Maybe that’s the point. I’ve never heard it put quite this way, but the Court’s boldest rulings showed something less innocent than a series of honest mistakes. Studying these cases and others of the Court’s liberal heyday, one never gets the sense that the majority was suppressing its own preferences; it was clearly enacting them. Those rulings can be described as wishful thinking run amok, and touched with more than a little arrogance. All in all, the Court displayed the opposite of the restrained and impartial temperament one expects even of a traffic-court judge, let alone a Supreme Court.

It’s ironic to recall Hamilton’s assurance that the Supreme Court would be “the least dangerous” of the three branches of the federal government. But Hamilton did give us a shrewd warning about what would happen if the Court were ever corrupted: in Federalist No. 78 he wrote that “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other [branches].” Since Franklin Roosevelt, as I’ve said, the judiciary has in effect formed a union with the other two branches to aggrandize the power of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

This, in outline, is the constitutional history of the United States. You won’t find it in the textbooks, which are required to be optimistic, to present degeneration as development, and to treat the successive pronouncements of the Supreme Court as so many oracular revelations of constitutional meaning. A leading liberal scholar, Leonard Levy, has gone so far as to say that what matters is not what the Constitution says, but what the Court has said about the Constitution in more than 400 volumes of commentary.

This can only mean that the commentary has displaced the original text, and that “We the People” have been supplanted by “We the Lawyers.” We the People can’t read and understand our own Constitution. We have to have it explained to us by the professionals. Moreover, if the Court enjoys oracular status, it can’t really be criticized, because it can do no wrong. We may dislike its results, but future rulings will have to be derived from them as precedents, rather than from the text and logic of the Constitution. And notice that the “conservative” justices appointed by Republican presidents have by and large upheld not the original Constitution, but the most liberal interpretations of the Court itself — notably on the subject of abortion, which I’ll return to in a minute.

To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution is the story of its inversion. The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights and powers of the states and the people. But we now have a sloppy presumption in favor of federal power. Most people assume the federal government can do anything it isn’t plainly forbidden to do.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted to make the principle of the Constitution as clear as possible. Hamilton, you know, argued against adding a Bill of Rights, on grounds that it would be redundant and confusing. He thought it would seem to imply that the federal government had more powers than it had been given. Why say, he asked, that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed, when the federal government would have no power by which it could be infringed? And you can even make the case that he was exactly right. He understood, at any rate, that our freedom is safer if we think of the Constitution as a list of powers rather than as a list of rights.

Be that as it may, the Bill of Rights was adopted, but it was designed to meet his objection. The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth says: “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.”

Now what these two provisions mean is pretty simple. The Ninth means that the list of the people’s rights in the Constitution is not meant to be complete — that they still have many other rights, like the right to travel or to marry, which may deserve just as much respect as the right not to have soldiers quartered in one’s home in peacetime. The Tenth, on the other hand, means that the list of powers “delegated” to the federal government is complete — and that any other powers the government assumed would be, in the Framers’ habitual word, “usurped.”

As I said earlier, the Founders believed that our rights come from God, and the government’s powers come from us. So the Constitution can’t list all our rights, but it can and does list all the federal government’s powers.

You can think of the Constitution as a sort of antitrust act for government, with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at its core. It’s remarkable that the same liberals who think business monopolies are sinister think monopolies of political power are progressive. When they can’t pass their programs because of the constitutional safeguards, they complain about “gridlock” — a cliché that shows they miss the whole point of the enumeration and separation of powers.

Well, I don’t have to tell you that this way of thinking is absolutely alien to that of today’s politicians and pundits. Can you imagine Al Gore, Dan Rostenkowski, or Tom Brokaw having a conversation about political principles with any of the Founding Fathers? If you can, you must have a vivid fantasy life.

And the result of the loss of our original political idiom has been, as I say, to invert the original presumptions. The average American, whether he has had high-school civics or a degree in political science, is apt to assume that the Constitution somehow empowers the government to do nearly anything, while implicitly limiting our rights by listing them. Not that anyone would say it this way. But it’s as if the Bill of Rights had said that the enumeration of the federal government’s powers in the Constitution is not meant to deny or disparage any other powers it may choose to claim, while the rights not given to the people in the Constitution are reserved to the federal government to give or withhold, and the states may be progressively stripped of their original powers.

What it comes to is that we don’t really have an operative Constitution anymore. The federal government defines its own powers day by day. It’s limited not by the list of its powers in the Constitution, but by whatever it can get away with politically. Just as the president can now send troops abroad to fight without a declaration of war, Congress can pass a national health care program without a constitutional delegation of power. The only restraint left is political opposition.

If you suspect I’m overstating the change from our original principles, I give you the late Justice Hugo Black. In a 1965 case called Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down a law forbidding the sale of contraceptives on grounds that it violated a right of “privacy.” (This supposed right, of course, became the basis for the Court’s even more radical 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, but that’s another story.) Justice Black dissented in the Griswold case on the following ground: “I like my privacy as well as the next [man],” he wrote, “but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.” What a hopelessly muddled — and really sinister — misconception of the relation between the individual and the state: government has a right to invade our privacy, unless prohibited by the Constitution. You don’t have to share the Court’s twisted view of the right of privacy in order to be shocked that one of its members takes this view of the “right” of government to invade privacy.

It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal abortion had been supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with appointees who would review Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court, the result was not what the conservatives had hoped for. The Court reaffirmed Roe.

Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion — a majority of the five-justice majority in the case — admitted that the Court’s previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court allowed Roe to stand.

Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this: The Court in effect declared itself a third party to the controversy, and then, setting aside the merits of the two principals’ claims, ruled in its own interest! It was as if the referee in a prizefight had declared himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget its self-interest in its decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.

The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didn’t realize what they were saying. A distinguished veteran Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually telling us that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments before it. In its confusion, it was blurting out the truth.

But by then very few Americans could even remember the original constitutional plan. The original plan was as Madison and Tocqueville described it: State government was to be the rule, federal government the exception. The states’ powers were to be “numerous and indefinite,” federal powers “few and defined.” This is a matter not only of history, but of iron logic: the Constitution doesn’t make sense when read any other way. As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers unless unlisted powers are withheld?

The unchecked federal government has not only overflowed its banks; it has even created its own economy. Thanks to its exercise of myriad unwarranted powers, it can claim tens of millions of dependents, at least part of whose income is due to the abuse of the taxing and spending powers for their benefit: government employees, retirees, farmers, contractors, teachers, artists, even soldiers. Large numbers of these people are paid much more than their market value because the taxpayer is forced to subsidize them. By the same token, most taxpayers would instantly be better off if the federal government simply ceased to exist — or if it suddenly returned to its constitutional functions.

Can we restore the Constitution and recover our freedom? I have no doubt that we can. Like all great reforms, it will take an intelligent, determined effort by many people. I don’t want to sow false optimism.

But the time is ripe for a constitutional counterrevolution. Discontent with the ruling system, as the 1992 Perot vote showed, is deep and widespread among several classes of people: Christians, conservatives, gun owners, taxpayers, and simple believers in honest government all have their reasons. The rulers lack legitimacy and don’t believe in their own power strongly enough to defend it.

The beauty of it is that the people don’t have to invent a new system of government in order to get rid of this one. They only have to restore the one described in the Constitution — the system our government already professes to be upholding. Taken seriously, the Constitution would pose a serious threat to our form of government.

And for just that reason, the ruling parties will be finished as soon as the American people rediscover and awaken their dormant Constitution.


Clearly, the above article was written by an intelligent man, but where are the obviously left out methods used by the elites to totally destroy our freedom, and methods of preventing the bastardization of our constitution? I suggest every person who reads this go to http://www.annavonreitz.com/  and enlighten their mind. And especially the author! As I write this, there are 1,965 articles every American should read and especially every school teacher and politician.

08 26 19 About the International Arrest Warrant”…..



 By Anna Von Reitz

About the “International Arrest Warrant” issued by “Reign of Heaven” Society, against me and my husband and the Government of The United States of America —- another bogus entity pretending to be “the” American Government, based on the purchase of documents related to the defunct Scottish Corporation formed 1868 and operated “as” The United States of America, Incorporated—- at a Naval Auction, no less —- it is all 100% Bushwah, having no cause, no basis, and no affect so long as everyone who is anyone keeps their heads screwed on and reality firmly in view.

There is one actual Federation of States doing business as The United States of America. It is an unincorporated Holding Company formed September 9, 1776; it is privately held by the States and People of this country, and has never been incorporated. This is another example of British Crown guile in action — a gross breach of trust and infringement upon our copyrights, names, and trademarks without our knowledge or consent.

Keith Livingway, the leader of this quasi-religious group, is a whackjob who has been in and out of Federal Prison for decades and who was forced to leave this country and live offshore to avoid arrest. He went to a Naval Sales Yard Auction, bought the aforementioned items once belonging to the defunct Scottish Corporation, and thought that he was thereby made King of the World, and America, too.

Next, he got “religion” and plagiarized the work of Frank O’Collins and shamelessly abused another man’s work for his own purposes (shamelessly took credit for it all, too) to create the completely elitist and whackjob “Reign of Heaven Society”.

They closed membership in 2012 in honor of the “End of the World” predicted (they said) by the Mayan Calendar. That means that you, Bubba, can never truly be a member in their elitist little group, because you were not “called” to their banner and subtly extorted into signing their contracts by December 21, 2012.

It turns out that the Mayan Calendar did not, does not, and will never predict any such thing. It also turns out that these people are nuts. Ignorant nuts, too, as they are continuing to rely upon documents created by pirates as the basis of their supposed authority and ownership interest.

So, however “official” all their documents and prognostications may appear, its all just more crappola, wrapped up in a different piece of paper. Sorry to bother everyone to pay any attention whatsoever to their nonsense, even for the purpose of debunking it.

If anyone needs to be arrested, its the heirs of that Scottish Corporate Interloper and all those who attempt to form commercial corporations “in our names” for the purpose of identity theft, copyright and trademark and patent infringement, constructive fraud, credit fraud, and other nefarious purposes.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 26 19 Dear Greg In Response to Your Response



 By Anna Von Reitz

Ever since the days of Simon Magus there have been those in the Church and also those outside the Church, who have viewed the whole “Jesus Story” as a new scam, with miracles being a new kind of Magic Show. They saw and they see it — still today — as something that smooth operators could use to fleece the gullible. And script to suit themselves.

The True God doesn’t take any note of them and their presumptions. He doesn’t act on their schedules. His thought processes and time scales are profoundly different. And He writes His own scripts. I can tell you that for sure, based on my first-hand experience.

While they are scrabbling around trying to fulfill prophecy using human means and reasoning, He is pursuing His own way. Guess who is successful in the end?

Let me tell you what is at work in terms of the Anti-Christ, who appears before the Risen One:

The Bilderburgers and the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and the huge plethora of Government Council organizations and “Federal” agencies, especially the military departments, agencies, and subcontractors, have contrived with the help of “Christian’ Communists, to create and operate a worldwide military hegemony potentially able to enslave the entire planet for their benefit. And that is what they are bent on doing.

I am not just speaking through my hat here.

We have the actual records, public and private meeting notes, debates, legislation, treaties, witnesses, —everything, including proof of how they have falsified documents, practiced identity theft and unconscionable contracting processes, promoted constructive fraud, conspiracy of various kinds, securities fraud, inland piracy, unlawful conversion, patent fraud, infringement of copyrights and trademarks, treasonous usurpation of government authority, gross breach of trusts, treaties, and commercial contracts, and on and on, but most especially, their promotion of monopoly interests and their rigging of commodity supplies, and now, their rigging of the weather via advanced “secret” geoengineering.

Greg, these people are criminals of the worst kind. Worse than any traditional mafia. Are you sure you want to be their poster boy?

I mean, “King of England” is just a role, like playing “Bat Man” or “The Joker” — a matter of being a hereditary Actor and putting on a big public magic show designed to fleece the gullible — and all resulting in the same objective which has been their object all along: to consolidate all apparent power in the hands of one man who will serve them and yet appear to be the independent leader of all nations, all religions, etc., etc., etc. — the Anti-Christ claiming to be Christ.

Is that a role you cherish for yourself, Greg?

If the Pope can’t serve thanks to the exposure of the Deep Rot in the Church and the President of “the” United States won’t serve thanks to the exposure of the Deep State running the Municipal United States Government, well, then, we are back to Merry Old England, and the Territorial Government (that’s what they call the Commonwealth these days, BTW), and still searching for some plausible story line to carry out their Master Plan.

So here comes Joseph Gregory Hallett with all the right ear-markings and all the Mystery School trappings and a plausible story line, claiming the Title of Christ…..

But wait a minute….

Jesus never called himself “Christ”, did he? Ah, no….

And he never married anyone that we know of, did he? No such thing is recorded in the scriptures — not even in the Apocrypha.

So all this story line about Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting it on and secretly having a child and Dan Brown blah-blah-blah — can really be traced to the Merovingian Kings and claims they made, all without proof, to legitimize their own positions hundreds of years after Jesus lived and died.

It’s a strange parallel to what you are doing now — claiming a secret tryst out of wedlock as a basis for kingship via an earthly bloodline. And that in turn echoes the tryst out of wedlock between Mary and the True God — you can see where this is all going. Straight into the crapper.

But we have: (1) no good reason to believe that Jesus had physical heirs; (2) no reason to think that bloodlines established by his siblings were exceptional — by his own declaration; (3) no reason to think that we receive our inheritance from Jesus in any physical sense or for any physical reason: rather, we inherit from the Holy Spirit and his teachings, or we do not, we obey His Father, or we do not.

The only family Jesus had according to the scriptures was limited to his Mother, Father, and siblings —- and he, himself, expanded his family to include all those who obey the Will of His Father in Heaven, indicating very clearly that that is the standard of kinship with Him to be observed, not any physical bloodline. Even if it did exist.

Jesus was a man on a mission, faithfully and lovingly enduring its requirements in obedience to the True God, his beloved Father in Heaven.

His mission, if possible, was to redeem the Sons of Abraham.

It was only because of their rejection and cruelty that the Gentiles got a seat at the table at all.

Of course, this rejection had been foretold by the prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, but then, ten of the ten tribes were Baal worshipers on the side, and they controlled the Sanhedrin.

So go figure, then as now.

Those in power want to remain in power. They see no reason why they should give it up or give it back to the people they stole it from, just like the Sanhedrin refused to honor Jesus and accused him of necromancy for bringing Lazarus back from the dead.

Any excuse to accuse, deny, defile, mis-characterize, or, alternatively, to promote you, so long as it justifies their continued hegemony, will do.

So the choices for you, Greg, are to: (1) serve as their puppet Anti-Christ, or, (2) be rejected; or (3) play their game and disappoint them, which means you will be murdered. Just as foretold.

It’s all very tiresome for me. Like watching the replay of a football game you’ve seen seventeen times already. It doesn’t even have the charm of being a new set of lies.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but if you were me, you would understand that I have been to this rodeo too many times before, and I am sick of it.

Mankind must progress beyond this puerile state of selfish incompetence and delusion. Must. Now.

A totally new understanding of self and of reality is needed, and along with that, new forms of self-governance and self-responsibility.

Mankind has been stuck at the “two year-old with a hammer” stage for far too long—-a circumstance and delay that has been caused by the self-interest, lust, lies, and criminality of a few old demons sitting on top of a Ponzi Scheme based on idolatry and commodity rigging.

Now they are trying to rig water as “the” controlling commodity.

I have one thing to say to them —- stop now, or the actual God will blow you all to kingdom come, with great precision, one by one.

And to you, Greg, I have this to say — stop now, or you know what will happen to you. You are playing a game with the Devil and his only intention is to use you as a pawn and to play you as such.

So far as I know, there hasn’t been “a” rightful King of England for a very long time. Our mutual ancestor, William of Normandy, made sure of that and sounded the death-knell of any actual monarchy in England almost a thousand years ago.

It’s more than high time for everyone to accept that outcome and recognize the fact that all the “Kings” and “Queens” who have served since then, have served as Regents for the Popes, having no clear claim to control or rule anything but Commonwealth property. Even the rebellious Tudors succumbed.

Trying to bamboozle people and institutions out of their natural property rights via semantic deceits and other criminal acts of fraud does not a valid “commonwealth” make. Changing the names and administrative units of the “former” Commonwealth to the control of the “Territorial Government” doesn’t change anything, either.

As I said — changing the name of horse hooey has no discernible effect upon it. It remains horse hooey, first to last. Commonwealth Government equals Territorial Government and Territorial Government equals Commonwealth Government.

Please, everyone, get it through your heads — it doesn’t matter to God what you call it. What matters is what it is. Period.

Commercial Feudalism will fail, just as its Monarchist predecessors failed, and for the same reason: it is unnatural.

Feudalism creates an unnatural matrix of controls and subjects mankind to those unnatural conditions. It deprives men of the rewards of their labors and the exercise of their freewill.

It promotes idolatry and blasphemy and criminality in the process of seeking to enslave one man to another, instead of accepting the fact that we are all fundamentally equal, all deserving of equal protection under the law, and all owed the opportunity to thrive and chart our own course in life.

Self-governance is not merely an idea promoted by American Founding Fathers. It is a Law of Nature. And every single time we ignore the Laws of Nature put in place by our Creator, guess what happens, Greg?

We fall on our noses. And fall and fall and fall and fall…..

Are you beginning to grasp why I am bored silly?

We’ve got a little group of self-interested men who like this game because they get perks from it, and because of them and their infantile animal urges and general lack of common sense and decency, the entire rest of the world and the Earth itself is made to suffer.

Over and over and over and over and over and over….

It’s not just the eternal return of things, its the eternal throw up of things.

Notice the results? Every single time…. just like when you were a baby learning to walk— boom! boom! boom!

The only difference is that we learned from our numerous tumbles onto our butts back then, and we have not learned the similar lessons provided by every exercise in governance by kings, queens, Popes, corporations, or Mystery Schools electing a “Christ”.

Feudalism of any kind, based on any rationale whatsoever, is unnatural and doomed to fail (after a whole lot of misery) because it is unnatural.

So, we are back, again, to the dilemma of Samuel. Nothing has changed. The Israelites are demanding a king to rule over them, instead of accepting the fact that no man is king.

It has been slightly over 12,000 years that this “lesson” has been ongoing. It’s like being trapped in an Algebra Class with idiots who just can’t get the concept of Cartesian Coordinates. So over and over and over and over again, we all suffer through this whole turkey trot….. Point A……Point B…. Point C…..

Men are not meant to rule over other men.

You and I and everyone else on this planet has had that proven to them in so many ways over such an expanse of time that it defies imagination that we are all still sitting here struggling over this fact.

Men are meant to rule themselves, and have a hard enough time even doing that much.

We are meant to rule ourselves by conscious, logical, reasonable discernment of truth about ourselves and the world around us, but we can’t do that when we are constantly lied to by entire organizations posing as churches and governments and universities in the literal business of lying to us for their own self-interest.

What’s a Creator to do? Give up on a failed experiment? Conclude that this species is too stupid and too selfish to live? How to choose between the Deluders and the Deluded, when the Deluders are deluded themselves?

Yet despite all this, Jesus came here, willingly, suffered and died. William Cooper wrote “Behold, A Pale Horse” in the same spirit. And here I am, banging you about the ears like a schoolboy, trying to bring your attention to the fact that feudalism, including Corporate Feudalism, doesn’t work for known reasons, and the practice of external kingship doesn’t work —- even if you are the king.

The True God, who is the only King, dwells within us. He has and needs no officers, no prelates, no priests; he doesn’t play favorites and doesn’t follow our instructions. Rather, he instructs us — if we will listen — in the wisdom of life and truth and the way we should go. And he hands us lessons and tests and observes what we do, the same way a loving parent challenges us with new tasks and new skills.

We are failing the test about kings. We are stuck like ants in amber on an Ancient Canaanite practice that didn’t work then and still isn’t working now. And we have no excuse for this idiocy, because we have fallen down on our butts more times than I can guess or remember.

It’s time for the whole world to find a new answer, and to realize that as Jesus said thousands of years ago, the True God — our True King — is within us.

We may get it right as we stagger forward, or we may get it wrong, but at least we’d be making some progress, not getting stuck doing the same old thing the same old way for the same old failed reasons, and yes, getting the same results: warfare, death, destruction, lies, theft, more lies, more power struggles, more fraud, more pieces of useless paper, and more treaties that aren’t worth wind, much less the paper they are written on.

How about this? Three laws. Total.

1. Love the True God, the Creator and Giver of Life and Consciousness.

2. Love your neighbors and yourself.

3. Keep the peace and honor free will.

And we will just toss out the millions — literally — millions of statutory “laws” and codes and regulations, and pay attention, finally, to the Natural Laws that our Creator established for us, instead.

If everyone on this planet accepts and practices these three things, we can have our paradise on Earth and eat ice cream, too, illuminated by peace and prosperity and an end to selfish idiocy.

And we can all spend our time and money doing something more productive and positive than fighting and struggling to control external governments.

I don’t know about you, Greg, but I am ready to graduate to an entirely new world and new system of doing things, a new system of beliefs and values, a new system of self-governance, peace, plenty, and yes — joy. I have learned my lessons. I don’t need to sit here and watch another round of the same “Algebra Lesson” unfolding.

08 25 19 Government, Media, and Gun Control




By Jackie Juntti

FINALLY –  someone in media clearly says what I have been saying for years.  It all goes along with the TWISTING of WORDS –  ie: What does “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” mean – beginning when it was first stated in the 2nd Amendment and what does it mean today with the WORD TWISTING?  As I understand words – SHALL NOT INFRINGE does not mean ‘maybe’ or ‘pass rules’ on how to go around the LAW.  Each and EVERY rule that deals with guns beyond SHALL NOT INFRINGE is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.
The problem is the enforcement of those who VIOLATE other laws – like SHALL NOT KILL, assault laws.  It isn’t the GUN that is guilty – it is the PERSON.  Do we hold hammers liable for building things?  Do we hold CARS liable for injury or deaths in which a car was used to inflict harm?  The Opioids kill more than guns but do we confiscate those drugs?
As I often say –  GO TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM and deal with it – not the vines.

Jackie Juntti
WGEN  idzrus@earthlink.net

So stand down, Congress.We don’t need you to keep us safe, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, our right to bear arms, will do that
Government, Media, and Gun Control

Government, Media, and Gun Control


By Peggy Ryan ­­

The New York Post blared the headline: “Now can Congress talk about gun control?“ No, Congress should never, ever talk about gun control because it goes against the very Constitution they swore to defend.

But what brought us to the place where Congress and even our President is willing to ‘talk’ about encroaching on our Constitutional rights? It was another mass shooting, actually two events back-to-back, a Walmart in El Paso, Texas where 20 people were killed and a bar in Dayton Ohio where the shooter took 9 lives.

Though those crimes are horrific tragedies they’re not the only gun deaths in this country. More than 100 people were shot In Chicago over the 4th of July Weekend, 15 Killed in just one city. Why don’t we hear the media drumbeat for gun control over those deaths?

There are two methods of manipulation, ‘persuasion’ that the left uses to get gun control and the media is able to optimize both tactics with mass shootings. The first ploy is to pounce on a tragedy before the bodies are cold. Rahm Emanuel gave voice to this technique when he instructed:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Translation: if you have a horrific massacre, get right in there while the emotions are raw, while the victims’ families and survivors are still reeling. If you play your cards right you’ll be able to use their grief, their fear to get gun laws you wouldn’t have otherwise been able to pass. So a mass shooting is an opportunity according to Rahm’s Rule.

The second way media exploits a mass casualty event is to effectively use terrorism. The number of casualties in a terror attack is not as important as where the attack takes place.

The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them.”

People are far more likely to turn on gun owners if the tragedy is in their own backyard, a Walmart, a concert, or a club.  These are places most Americans go at one time or another so the message is no one’s safe. The media then binge-reports on the tragedy, paints it as a national crisis, a recurring event, an ever-present danger that demands new gun laws. Thus these domestic terror attacks are tailor-made to achieve gun control.

But the left and their media can’t wait around for a crisis so they augment their gun control argument with a blatant lie. They repeatedly claim that the US has the most mass shootings, that these events only happen in America. But that narrative is false:

America is not the only country with this problem: Mass shootings happen all over the world and if you account for the POPULATION DIFFERENCE between the United States and smaller nations, we’re not even one of the countries with the worst problem,

The campaign to disarm the American people is relentless. Congress wants to put gun owners in a federal database where they can be located on a moment’s notice. Democrats have been demanding universal background checks for decades. The reason is simple, they’d have a hell of a time confiscating guns if they have no idea where the guns are. But if they could just locate gun owners with the click of a mouse, their task would be significantly easier when the time comes.

Congress is working to pass red flag laws that sound sensible enough but are already being abused. In California it’s only family and law enforcement now but “lawmakers are already pushing for an expansion of the law to grant the right to co-workers, high school, and college personnel, and mental health care professionals. “They’ll undoubtedly include hairdressers or our server at iHop before they’re done or maybe just let the accuser be anonymous, that would work.

So if someone reports you as unhinged, says you can’t be trusted with guns, the government will swoop in and remove those weapons. Not unhinged? Well, you’ll get your chance to convince some liberal activist judge that wearing a #MAGA hat doesn’t make you a white nationalist threat. After all, “right-wing terrorism” is all the rage in media today, though it doesn’t really exist.

Fewer homicides were committed by political terrorists of any stripe in the United States in 2017 than were committed by illegal immigrants in the state of Texas alone.

There’s good reason we can’t trust our government to do what’s right for the American people. This same Congress that wants to regulate our Constitutional rights brought us Obamacare; an out of control national debt; the horrible Iran Deal, and the list goes on. Our government openly lies to us, the Obama Administration’s claim that a video triggered the Benghazi attack or the recent coordinated Russian collusion hoax pushed by Democrats, the deep state, and the media for two and half years.

These are the people to keep us safe? I don’t think so, although once we had leaders who truly wanted to keep the people safe. Those leaders wrote laws that are proven to protect Americans that have stood the test of time, the Constitution of the Untied States.

But the push for gun control is gaining traction. Even President Trump, a strong defender of our 2nd Amendment, is saying something has to be done. Therein lays the trap.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt

No, something doesn’t have to be done, It’s not time for gun laws, we don’t have to pass gun control, that path is the road to tyranny. We the people know new gun laws won’t stop shootings yet media portrays the call for action as a national outcry. It’s not.

But something does need to be done about a politically poisoned media that attacks the Constitution at every turn, which blames Americans for the carnage, and insists our 2nd Amendment is the problem. Law-abiding gun owners aren’t the problem, they’re the solution. As one bumper sticker reads:

Legal gun owners have over 200 million guns and 12 trillion rounds of ammo. If we were the problem, you’d know it!”

But here’s an idea, Congress, media, blame the shooter, the guy who actually fired the gun. Maybe he’s crazy or maybe he’s just evil but he’s the one who killed those people, no one made him do it and no one else is responsible for his actions.

The federal government doesn’t need any more tools to monitor us, to regulate us, to subjugate us. That’s the real red flag, the true danger to the American people, government.

The Constitution [shall] never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams

So stand down, Congress. We don’t need you to keep us safe, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, our right to bear arms, will do that.

08 25 19 Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws Are Even Worse Than You Think





Download free computerized mp3 audio file of this column


By Chuck Baldwin

As I said in this column last week, Republicans Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are joining forces with liberal Democrats to soon enact “red flag” gun confiscation laws. I also reported on the push for the enactment of other gun control measures such as universal background checks being promoted on Capitol Hill and by the White House here.

Yes, Donald Trump is calling for “red flag” gun confiscation laws and universal background checks. Trump said, “I have an appetite for background checks. We’re going to be doing background checks. We’re going to be filling in . . . the loopholes.”

I urge readers to watch my 8-minute video exposing Donald Trump’s betrayal of his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment and share it with as many of your friends as you can. If we don’t convince our U.S. senators to reject these egregious gun control measures, THEY WILL BE PASSED, AND TRUMP WILL SIGN THEM INTO LAW. We have about two or three weeks to convince our senators to reject these new gun control laws. That’s it.

Please watch the video and share it with everyone you can.

If law-abiding gun owners don’t call their U.S. senators en masse, and I mean posthaste, you are very likely to wake up one morning around 4am to the sound of a SWAT team breaking down your door to confiscate your guns, prepared to kill you or any member of your family who resists. Why? Perhaps because a gun-hating neighbor hates you having guns or a relative doesn’t like you and is looking for any way to “teach you a lesson” or your ex-spouse is looking for any way to “get even” with you or an anti-gun cop with a grudge wants to send a political message or a family doctor or school teacher overheard one of your children talk about how many guns daddy has and became alarmed, etc., ad infinitum.

Plus, the FBI has just recently stated that if you believe in “conspiracy theories,” you are a “domestic terrorist threat.” That statement is from an FBI intelligence bulletin from the bureau’s Phoenix field office, dated May 30, 2019. That FBI designation alone could very easily precipitate a “red flag” gun confiscation order being rendered against you.

And Donald Trump himself recently demonstrated how dangerous “red flag” laws are. In a tweet on August 13, President Trump said,

Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!

Are you paying attention? Donald Trump was threatening to use a “red flag” law to authorize police agencies to take away an American citizen’s Natural God-given right of self-defense simply because Trump didn’t like what the citizen said—about him.

Folks, don’t you see? Those in authority can use “red flag” gun confiscation laws against ANYONE they want and for ANY REASON they want.

In other words, there doesn’t have to be a reason. Under “red flag” laws, all it takes for police to come and seize your guns is for someone to make a “red flag” accusation against you. That’s it. And, yes, it really IS that easy.

“Red flag” laws not only eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment and 8th Amendment.

The enforcement of “red flag” laws is actually much worse than you think, so says Donald Kilmer, an attorney who has litigated and defended against many state and federal gun charges.

Everyone is debating “red flag” laws like they’re some new thing, but California has had variations of them for decades. We call them domestic violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, workplace restraining orders, elder abuse restraining orders, mental health seizures and prohibition orders, and, more recently, gun violence restraining orders.

They’re all meant to disarm dangerous people — but they’re all fundamentally flawed.

None of these red flag laws would have prevented recent mass shootings. And in my 23 years practicing law in the heart of Silicon Valley, I have litigated dozens of these cases. I’ve seen firsthand the practical enforcement problems that emerge in real-life cases.

These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. That’s fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You’ll get your “full due process” hearing, but not until later.

And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the “red flag” order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges.

That kind of situation is ripe for danger. In one situation in Baltimore, police ended up shooting [and killing] a man when they came to collect his guns under a “red flag” law.

In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial “offer” of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

Even if you win, the judge isn’t going to just hand your guns back to you at the end of the hearing. It’s probably a good idea to “lawyer up” just to go through the process of recovering your guns, so you don’t go to jail or prison for accidentally breaking an obscure firearm law or regulation. You wouldn’t want to set off a red flag.

Law-abiding gun owners better get a big whiff of reality SOON and realize that if they are going to maintain the right to keep and bear arms much longer, THEY must step up to the plate and defend that right—and I mean RIGHT NOW.

The NRA is compromised and is in complete disarray and is offering NO HELP. Donald Trump has already proven he has ZERO fidelity to the 2nd Amendment (or to the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for that matter). Most Christians and conservatives are in a state of deep denial and hibernation, believing that their yellow-haired savior would never betray them, in spite of the fact that he has already betrayed them—repeatedly.

It is up to individual freedomists and gun owners who are willing to fight for their right to keep and bear arms to fend off this assault against our 2nd Amendment liberties. Reinforcements are not coming; it is up to YOU AND ME.

How much does the 2nd Amendment mean to you? Each of us will determine the answer to that question by what we do or do not do RIGHT NOW.

P.S. I, again, URGE readers to watch my 8-minute video regarding Trump’s betrayal of the 2nd Amendment and the push for the enactment of “red flag” gun confiscation laws and share it with everyone you can. In the video, I also include the phone numbers for both the White House and U.S. Senate, where you can call and voice your opposition.

P.P.S. Here is my video Open Letter To Our Legislator, Judges And Lawmen regarding “red flag” gun confiscation laws. Please watch it and share.

© Chuck Baldwin

08 24 19 An Answer and an Invitation to Greg Hallett



By Anna Von Reitz

Dear Greg,

I read with interest your long expository piece about Queen Victoria and the situation she faced in regard to the Rothschild coup — all points duly noted.

However, saving the “royal line” via an illicit, underage, out of wedlock tryst between Cousins reeks of exactly the same practices and standards practiced by the Illuminati — practices and religious beliefs steeped in the cult of bloodlines and intermarriage with close relatives and obvious disregard for standards of age of consent and marital vows and wedlock — things that are all foreign and emblematic of the Egyptian Cultists, Druids, etc., and not “Christian” at all.

That being so, and the Rothschilds being acknowledged as the owners of the “breeding rights” to the British Royal family, a scandalous proposition in and of itself, who is to say that the Rothschilds —operating from their standards, not from ours— didn’t order the rape and impregnation of a 14 year-old girl as the start of their breeding program?

As you are no doubt aware, these cultists have their own ideas about genetics and “purity” —- one of which is to backbreed into related lines to preserve initial genetic content, just as dog breeders do.

It looks to me like they established exactly such an insurance policy of “blooded stock” when they took over the British Royals Breeding Program—- and deliberately produced your ancestors and co-collaborators to create exactly such a “backline”.

According to their beliefs, only two virgins produce a pure line, because any other, later, intercourse is apt to be polluted via fragments of genetic material left by former lovers in the mother’s bloodstream.

So they wasted no time in taking charge of the royal bloodlines and getting the virgin princess impregnated by her own cousin when she was only 14 — a gross and despicable action for which these cultists deserve to be universally condemned– just on the face of it.

It also makes sense that they would do this as a preliminary action, as it was their intention to otherwise adulterate and thereby invalidate the British Royal Bloodline —- which is what they proceeded to do and which is the “trump card” you are now playing.

The diabolical genius of this is that they wind up with two bloodlines, one “pure” according to their ideas, one “adulterated” — also according to their ideas — both of which they own and control.

The impure serve as puppets and scapegoats. The “pure” serve as a fallback for them to continue claiming the throne no matter what.

If the adulterated line refuses to do their bidding, or people wake up and get out the pitchforks, they bring forward the “pure” bloodline and use that as an excuse to depose the “impure line” and then they present it (you) as an alternative to their same evil: Boaz and Joachim, Pillar and Post, Republican and Democrat.

You will all have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to put any such argument or facile substitution past me.

So what you appear to be saying is that you are rightful King of England and of the Sangrael (“Holy Blood”/”Holy Grail”/”Holy Vessel”) as a result of sins committed by Princess Victoria under duress….but the total picture is considerably different and more problematic, and the more sober judgment would seem to be that both from a spiritual and practical standpoint, your claims —and theirs— are tainted and derived from immoral criminal activities, including underage sex trafficking, enslavement, child abuse, child rape, falsification of records, identity theft, substitution frauds, semantic deceits—-all surmounted by no small amount of purposeful constructive fraud and conspiracy against the lawful British government and the actual Royal Family which was also defamed, deposed, bankrupted and murdered by the same Actors.

Notice the mistreatment suffered by the last Plantagenets at the hands of Princess Victoria: the Earls of Loudon, who are Belle Chers and rightful hereditary heirs and Christi. Notice the purposeful obfuscation of the origins of “America” as a series of “Armorican” —Norman French colonies— not British.

We can all see the fruits of such a religious cult in the two World
Wars and innumerable mercenary conflicts which have all but destroyed the world and the biosphere, both.

So, given that, why would anyone in their right mind continue to support any individual monarch or form of governance promoted by these Cultists at all? And I do mean — period — at all?

If you, as an individual, want to do the right thing — then do it.

Use whatever power you may have or assume, to bring peace and justice— and not through some monolithic military conglomerate merging all the nations on Earth into one Evil Empire ruled over by puppets owned, operated, and bred like dogs by criminal bank syndicates.

This whole story line of beneficent “merging” of nations all being brought together doesn’t smell right, and there is a reason that it doesn’t—- it’s the same garbage that the Deep State has been trying to accomplish for years, only “re-branded” as something new and good.

Call horse hunks by a different name, Greg, and strange thing, —-they smell and taste exactly the same.

As you may have cause to know, there are German and French and Italian and Indian and Ethiopian Sangraels, the Christi, so there is not one “Christ”, but many; as you certainly have cause to know, the only special status of your claimed Office is the overseeing of the Commonwealth, and finally, as you may know, my Office is not limited to my work as Fiduciary of The United States of America.

I would suggest that the Bank of England and the Society for the Economy and the government of Westminster simply give up, admit what they have done, cough up the records, do what they can to correct and make amends, and otherwise stop causing trouble.

If the Perps have given you all sorts of ranks and titles and passed the purloined scepter to you, its well-past time for you to tell the “US” Navy to stop its illicit attacks on America and stop its tampering with American water resources and stop its disrespect of its obligations under the ENMOD Treaties regarding domestic targets only—-and stop trying to corner the market on water supplies.

It’s never going to work. We have all the patents as evidence and proof in their own handwriting and need nothing more to condemn them all to death. No questions asked. And the people of over 200 countries would applaud the action.

My Office is not Terrestrial in origin, not subject to any Earthly King or Prince; I know exactly who I am and am in full command of my history. If you want to talk turkey, get on the horn and talk. Field has my number.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com


08 24 19 Red Alert! I’m Baaaack!



 By Anna Von Reitz

To quote the Terminator….. and squalling mad, too.

Everyone needs to get their heads screwed on and right smart quick.

The minions of the Vermin have discovered that yes, indeed, they have no basis to be in our court buildings and don’t own our court facilities and that in fact, they are about a hundred years behind on their lease and rental agreements.

Oh, my.   And on top of that, it turns out that the people that they have been persecuting and prosecuting are their Creditors.  Imagine that?  Fully admitted, in black and white, just as I have been telling you all for several years.  Take a close look at the attached pdf.


Notice something odd?  The Plaintiffs are the Debtors and the Defendants are the Creditors.  Enough said.

So now they are going around to the humble Justices of the Peace that are still serving the actual people of their respective Counties and trying to wine and dine them into signing paperwork that would “gift” the courthouses and other facilities that belong to the actual People of this country to the foreign interlopers, corporate thieves, and renegade Municipal “Government” which is operating in flagrant violation of the Constitution that allows its very existence.

What part of “ten square miles” don’t the Pope and the US CONGRESS understand?  Do we need to draw them a picture?

What part of “shall not be infringed” are they struggling over?   Again, are those little international symbols— the red circle with a bar across the circle really necessary?

These activities have been reported in several states now, and thankfully none of the actual Justices of the Peace have been stupid enough to fall for it—- but it is high time that we all “fully informed” everyone in local government that: (1) their positions do not allow them to make such deal for two reasons: (a) most of them have not properly declared their political status on any public-available record; and (b) none of them are authorized to sell, trade, distribute, or “gift” away any particle of our land or soil, our public buildings or our property in general —- it is all ours, thank you very much, and as long as even one American retains their interest, the rats are SOL.

Being trusted to use that property for valid public purposes is a serious Public Trust in and of itself, one that has been grossly abused by the Officers of these Foreign Courts who have been leasing the facilities to conduct their private corporate tribunals under conditions of constructive fraud and operating these foreign courts under color of law to extort assets and credit from Americans.

I have instructed the Territorial United States Government to get off their rumps and shut down the Municipal COURTS which are all operating outside their limited jurisdiction and in violation of the constitutional agreements that give these institutions any right to exist.

If they are to continue to operate at all, they must operate solely within the ten miles square apportioned to them and must stop addressing Americans as “citizens of the United States”, which 90% of us are not and never were.

As I speak, these idiots are gearing up for another “civil war” on our shores — another mercenary “conflict” —– and it’s up to all the nations of the world to put a stop to this activity once and for all, on our shores or anyone else’s.

It’s a lot cheaper to arrest, try, and execute members of a “Congress” operating in Breach of the Constitution, in Gross Criminal Breach of Trust, and in violation of their commercial contracts, than it is to involve millions of innocent people in extermination campaigns designed to kill off the Priority Creditors of both these foreign commercial corporations.

And while we are at it, it is also much more time and cost effective to liquidate these corporations entirely, and gift the “receipts” to the victims.  The British Crown and the Municipal United States corporations and their European Masters have caused nothing but war and misery and planetary catastrophe for three centuries.

All it really takes is to arm our tactical weapons and lock on the pre-selected targets in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Inner City of London, Scotland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Rome, Prague, New York, New Delhi, Hong Kong, and Washington, DC.

Let them know that the rest of the world has had enough. We see right through their lies and we know who they are.  Literally.  It’s time for all this crappola to stop or for the ringleaders to die— on a permanent basis.

Fear not the one who can kill the body and not the soul; rather, fear the One who can toss both body and soul in Gehenna.

This time, if they push any more “drought”, cause any more earthquakes, or create any more trouble at all, it’s not going to be a lot of misled innocent people “sacrificing” themselves for the sake of lies.

It’s going to be the perpetrators of these schemes that get gutted and burned.  And they will not return.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 24 19 How to Kill an Archon



By Anna Von Reitz

Sometimes I wonder, seriously, if we as a species, are too stupid to live?

This morning I woke up to the “news” that the banks are 220 trillion “in debt” as a result of “derivatives” —- basically false names and false titles that have been used to defraud people all over the world, with malice aforethought, by eight conspiring central banks and a handful of securities brokerages and holding companies.

“Ha!” I snorted into my morning coffee, much as my Father used to do when something startling came to the surface early in the day. “Is that all?” I thought. And then I thought, “Well, what to hell? The idiots just gave Prince Philip $950 trillion in “Life Force Value Annuities”—- all owed to innocent Americans and Canadians, by the way—- go shake his pockets loose and poof! That “derivative problem” just goes away….. and then some.”

Then I brooded on the topic of so-called “water shortages” that we are experiencing as a result of the US NAVY and NATO Allies doing unlawful and illegal weather warfare “testing” on non-domestic populations in flagrant violation of the United Nation’s ENMOD Treaties.

Their schtick selling you oil as a “precious commodity” is at an end, so they have cast around and found something even more precious that they can “limit” by manipulating the jet stream and causing a fake drought—– water, which, unlike oil, you need to live.

Just ask yourselves, how is it possible to have 85% humidity and no rain for weeks at a time? And how much could the bastards extort, if they “corner the market” on water?

Geoengineering. Weather modification technology. All those “chem trails” were establishing “field antenna” structures to bounce other radiation off of—- similar to the Japanese Pixel Paint that allows them to paint a wall and make it into a TV screen forty feet long and eighteen feet high.

Using this technology they can keep water vapor suspended in the atmosphere indefinitely, while using other technology to be able to “download” copious amounts of this atmospheric water for themselves. They can also use other technology to redirect the natural jet streams —- rivers of water vapor in the atmosphere — and cause them to dump their payloads of water into the oceans instead of letting them rain on the land.

Hence the sudden “threat” of a “centuries long drought” and sky-high water prices.

How about this? We all wise up and recognize a few things.

What is an Archon?

Basically, an Archon is an extra-terrestrial Bad Idea that assumes a physical form.

These things are the embodiment of greed. The ultimate Useless Eaters. All they know how to do, is consume, consume, consume.

And all they know how to do in order to consume is to cheat, and lie, and steal.

Because these THINGS are not, strictly speaking, alive, they are somewhat hard to kill.

It has to be done underwater, with an infrared laser through the eye sockets.

If you don’t do it right the first time, they come back, sort of like warts or in-grown toe-nails, and continue to cause trouble.

Another thing about Archons is that they are, relatively speaking, physically weak and quite cowardly on average. That’s part of the reason that they constantly hide behind “proxies” —- proxy governments, proxy banks, proxy proxies.

Their entire modus operandi is to work through others to achieve their ends, so as to protect themselves, and to hide their identities, and to give themselves “plausible deniability” when the Shipping High In Transit comes down.

So they pretend to be Catholics — but aren’t Catholics.

They pretend to be Jews — but aren’t Jews.

They pretend to Muslims — but aren’t Muslims, either.

So never blame the people like Donald Trump or even Queen Elizabeth or Pope Francis. That’s like blaming an evil sock puppet.

No, you have to think harder and look longer and suddenly you will start to see the actual shape and nature of the Beasts. It’s easy to target their nerve centers: New York, Inner City of London, Rome, Luxembourg, Washington, DC, Prague, Hong Kong, New Delhi…. but not so easy to identify them.

Howbeit, we have done so. We know exactly who they are and where they live, how they came to be here, all of it.

And the information has already been distributed to millions of interested parties, here and throughout the galaxy, complete with a “How to Recognize an Archon Guide” that shows the DNA markers of bodies they are known to use.

So it won’t be such an easy business for them to “externally manipulate” things any longer. Our attitude is, if they won’t go peaceably, well….. there are other means of getting rid of the plague.

In view of their tampering with the biosphere and in particular, their attempt to corner the market on water and in full view of their actions deliberately causing severe drought conditions as part of their build-up scheme, we are ready to evict them forcibly and permanently.

Someone should inform the United Nations that they are being used as a storefront the same way the Roman Catholic Church has been used, and that the ENMOD Treaties are being violated with impunity by these vermin, but this time, it won’t be me who carries the bad news to the Galactic Council and the UN Inspector General.

I have other things to do.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 24 19 The End of Days



 By Anna Von Reitz

Time, like money, is an illusion.

It seems that “time is flowing past” us, but in fact, we and the Earth around us are the ones doing the flowing and changing— and time is just a handy cataloging device to keep track of our events and changes.

The things that were no longer are in our experience and the things that will be, aren’t here yet, either. There is only now, this moment, and our position relative to it, forever.

So when people talk about The End of Days and Judgment  Day, stop a moment and think.

This is, by definition, Judgment Day.  There is this day and no other in which any decisions can be made.  It is our Judgment Day when the decisions we make forever impact our lives and the lives of others— for good or for ill in the sight of the True God.

So let your judgments be righteous and good this day and everyday, for when we rise up in the morning you can be sure that this is Judgment Day.

Similarly, you can be sure that the End of Days will come the moment that we all stop using days as a counting unit to measure a commodity that doesn’t exist.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

08 23 19 What Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is That?




By Edwin Vieira Jr.


A short while ago, a friend of mine who is an ardent advocate in “social media” of the entire Second Amendment—including its first thirteen words, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—related a verbal altercation he had with a proponent of the so-called “individual-right theory” of the Amendment, which focuses exclusively on its last fourteen words, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This fellow chided my friend on the grounds that, were “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” tied in any manner whatsoever to the Militia, tens of millions of Americans now capable of exercising “the individual right” with respect to some (albeit not all) kinds of firearms could (and probably would) be denied a right to possess any firearms whatsoever, because they could (and probably would) be excluded from the Militia. Recognizing this complaint as the product of a variety of industrial-strength ignorance that afflicts all too many Americans today, I felt it incumbent upon me to post a rejoinder.

Read the entire article Below

  1. To put it most charitably, “the individual-right theory” of the Second Amendment is a linguistic and legalistic delusion of people who suffer from a peculiar sort of illiteracy. For, inasmuch as it derives from the last fourteen words of the Amendment, without reference to the first thirteen, it violates the fundamental—indeed, the very first—rule of constitutional law (as well as of English grammar), that all the words and phrases in each provision of the Constitution (or in an ordinary English sentence) must be construed together and interdependently, as a coherent whole.

Humans being the aggressively argumentative animals they are, it is surely possible for someone to contend that no inextricable relationship—whether linguistic, logical, or legal—should be taken to exist between the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment, on the one hand, and the last fourteen words, on the other. The plausibility of any such contention would be nil, however, inasmuch as it would compel the conclusion that America’s Founders were extraordinarily poor draftsmen (or perhaps that English was not their native language). Worse yet, to say (as my friend’s antagonist did) that the Amendment’s first thirteen words should not be considered at all, would defame the Founders as brainless bumpkins indeed. If one is entitled to deride Judge Harvey Wilkinson’s arrogantly asinine attribution of “profound ambiguities” to the Second Amendment in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 150 (4th Cir. 2017) (concurring opinion), how much more should one ridicule the assertion of touts for “the individual-right theory” that the Second Amendment in its entirety is confused to the point of self-contradiction, and that only by editorially excising its first thirteen words can the recondite “true” meaning of the last fourteen be discovered and correctly applied? Confronted by such a claim, one is entitled to ask: “What ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is that, which is to be found, not by heeding all the words of the Constitution, but by disregarding some of them?”

Many Americans, however, are less interested in parsing the niceties of constitutional law and penetrating the arcana of history than in preventing the rude practicalities of modern-day “gun control” from being visited upon themselves. They are willing to swallow “the individual-right theory”—its intellectually indigestible horns, hide, and hooves included—because they assume that theory to be more useful to their goal of preserving for themselves an imaginary “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” under present political and social conditions than is the strictly constitutional construction of the Second Amendment which ties that “right” to “[a] well regulated Militia”. Having explored in great depth the historical foundations and legal intricacies of the Second Amendment in my book The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (Front Royal, Virginia: CD-Rom Version, 2012), I need not rehearse here the constitutional conclusions laid out there. It would be useful, though, to compare and contrast the truncated fourteen-word version of the Second Amendment upon which “the individual-right theory” relies with the full twenty-seven word version of the Amendment which actually appears in the Constitution, so as to demonstrate in practical terms under which version Americans would be better off.

  1. Because of such defective opinions as District of Columbiav. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), at the level of the Supreme Court the vaunted “individual right” of ordinary Americans “to keep and bear Arms” extends no farther than to certain types of handguns which some individuals may possess in their homes for purposes of personal self-defense. Not all firearms—and, presumably, not even all types of handguns—are the beneficiaries of Heller and McDonald. So at the very threshold “the individual-right theory” stumbles over the question of which “Arms” the Second Amendment protects.

Furthermore, the class of individuals protected in their possession of handguns under Heller and McDonald presumably does not include anyone less than twenty-one years of age. That number does not derive from the Constitution (quite the contrary), but instead from various “gun-control” statutes enacted by Congress and legislatures of the several States the legitimacy of which both Heller and McDonald took for granted. So, again at the very threshold, “the individual-right theory” stumbles over the question of which “people” the Second Amendment includes in “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

Moreover, “the individual right” recognized in Heller and McDonald has not nullified numerous existing “gun-control” regulations of the United States and the several States (and even Localities) with respect to (i) what firearms and accessories individuals (of whatever ages) may or may not “keep” (such as so-called “assault firearms”, “machine guns”, “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns, “high-capacity magazines”, and so on), and (ii) where and how individuals (of whatever ages) may or may not “bear” such firearms as they happen lawfully to possess (such as in so-called “sensitive places”, whether by “open carry” or “concealed carry”, and so on).

Neither does “the individual right” preclude extensions of any existing regulations of firearms (other than those actually at issue in Heller and McDonald), or prohibit the enactment of new ones, by legislators. Nor does it disable judges from upholding old or new regulations on the basis that they satisfy so-called “strict scrutiny” (the “compelling governmental interest” and “least-restrictive alternative” tests), or some other even less demanding judicial excuses for abridging freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights (such as the theory of “reasonable regulation” advanced by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion in Heller). Certainly neither Heller nor McDonald has supplied an effective prophylactic against legislative enactment—and judicial approval—of all sorts of radical “gun-control” schemes in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California (to name a few of the offending States) since those decisions were handed down.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court saw fit not to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan, notwithstanding that Kolbe relied explicitly on Heller for its absurd ruling that so-called “assault rifles”, being akin to “weapons of war”, fall outside of the guarantee of the Second Amendment:

We conclude * * * that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. * * * [They] are among the arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles”—“weapons that are most useful in military service”—which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. * * * [W]e have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage. [849 F.3d at 121.]

As much as one may justifiably guffaw at Judge Wilkinson who claimed to discern “profound ambiguities” in the Second Amendment, and as much as one may righteously denounce for plain dishonesty the majority of Judges in Kolbe who seized upon irresponsible dicta in Heller to serve their nefarious purpose, at the end of the day one must lay this pernicious result at Heller’s door—at the doors of the people who “successfully” litigated that case—at the doors of those who subsequently treated (and still treat) Heller as the Holy Grail of Second-Amendment jurisprudence, rather than as the kiss of Judas which it actually is—and especially at the doors of the Justices of the Supreme Court who let Kolbe stand. Although a minority of the Court is capable of granting a petition for a writ of certiorari, not even four Justices could muster the courage, the conviction, yea the common courtesy to their country to stand up for the Court’s own “landmark” decision in Heller when it was so callously and cynically perverted. This alone proves how worthless “the individual right” is as a guarantor of anything, when its own judicial creator suffers it to be so crudely prostituted before the eyes of the entire world. Worse yet, one can expect Kolbe’s reasoning, and the Supreme Court’s retreat, to embolden “gun-control” fanatics to urge upon legislatures and lower courts throughout the United States the notion that every firearm which ever has been or ever could be employed as a “weapon of war”—whether in conventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, partisan warfare, and so on—is, by dint of that description alone, excluded from the protection of the Second Amendment.

No less is one entitled to ask whether “the individual-right theory” has proven any more efficacious outside the lairs of rogue legislators and lower-court judges than within them. The answer, of course, is “no”. For the most notorious recent example, did that theory preclude the BATFE’s pernicious, and plainly unconstitutional, misconstruction of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a ban on so-called “bump stocks” by falsely assimilating such devices to actual “machine guns”? And did not President Trump himself—whose candidacy was promoted and whose incumbency has been praised by that champion of “the individual-right theory”, the NRA—propose, egg on, and approve the BATFE’s action, “the individual right” be damned? And what of “red-flag laws” which muster anonymous accusers—along with police, prosecutors, and judges playing at pop-psychology—to violate not only the Second Amendment but also the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments? What effect will “the individual right” have on these enactments? The all-too-predictable answer is “none”.

“The individual-right theory” has not disabled, it has not deterred, it has not discouraged—in fact, it has encouraged and even facilitated—“gun-control” fanatics in legislatures, courts, the mass media, and subversive special-interest groups in their jihad aimed at forcibly disarming as many ordinary Americans as possible, of as many firearms as possible, in as many places as possible, as soon as possible, for as many reasons as possible—while affording the victims of this aggression as little recourse as possible. Indeed, “the individual-right theory” is of inestimable propagandistic value to “gun controllers”, precisely because by its own terms it juxtaposes the right of a selfish individual to act in his own personal interest against the power and duty of a benevolent government to act altruistically in the public interest. On the basis of that politically loaded dichotomy, “gun controllers” can claim in the name of “common sense” that “the individual right” must be subjected to judicial “balancing tests” and other arguments sounding in “reasonable regulation” predicated on the “findings” of modern practitioners of “sociological jurisprudence” and other pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo peddled by Cultural Marxists. Not surprisingly, then, the most “progressive” contemporary “gun controllers” are ranging far beyond traditional proposals for ad hoc regulation of firearms to demand instead the systematic elimination of private possession of most if not all firearms, based on some politicians’ or special-interest groups’ tendentious notions of ordinary Americans’ lack of any “need” to possess this or that type of firearm (in particular, “assault rifles”); on the peculiar “danger” to the public which some types of firearms supposedly pose in private hands (such as mass shootings perpetrated with semi-automatic pistols and rifles equipped with “high-capacity magazines”); on the number of deaths per annum which can be attributed to firearms in general (the actual circumstances of those fatalities conveniently left unconsidered); on whether a firearm can be defamed as an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war”, or demonized with some other bad name (as if constitutional rights turned on mere labels); and so on.

For example, if the “gun controllers’” “compelling governmental interest” were to prevent homicides effected with firearms in the hands of private citizens to the greatest degree possible (a goal the importance of which no one would gainsay in principle), a plausible “least-restrictive alternative” that preserved a “right” (perhaps only vestigial in substance, but a “right” in form nonetheless) for individuals to employ firearms for target-shooting, hunting, and other governmentally approved “sporting purposes” would be for all privately owned firearms and ammunition to be kept in governmentally supervised arsenals to be withdrawn only for those uses at specified locations and times by individuals who had passed suitably comprehensive “background checks” immediately prior to being allowed access to those arms. As for personal protection, ordinary citizens could depend on Local police, or on private security firms properly licensed and regulated by the government, just as do large numbers of people who choose not to be armed today, or who live in jurisdictions in which the laws prevent them from being armed. As draconian as this may appear to be, it preserves the appearances of judicial “strict scrutiny” which most proponents of “the individual-right theory” not only accept as legitimate but even themselves attempt at every opportunity to importune the courts to apply to the latest “gun-control” scheme.

An additional demerit of “the individual-right theory” is that it concerns itself exclusively with the claim of an individual simply to possess his own firearm. But because one’s mere possession of a firearm does not guarantee his proficiency with it, “the individual right” does not even pretend to insure that someone who possesses a firearm will train, or be trained, sufficiently in its use, even for personal protection in his own home (let alone on the street). This fuels the fire of “gun controllers’” propaganda that many, if not most, ordinary Americans who possess firearms are ignorant red necks or incompetent bozos who—because of their deplorable lack of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes requisite for the safe handling of arms—pose significant dangers to themselves as well as to others.

Moreover, by the implication of its own terms, “the individual right” neither requires nor even encourages an individual to prepare—along with members of his own family, neighbors, and other Local citizens—to engage in concerted action with firearms should that become necessary for the defense of their community against (say) criminal gangs. Of course, advocates of “the individual right” such as the NRA promote the exalted notion that each armed American is a brick in a bulwark raised up against usurpation, oppression, and tyranny at the hands of the worst of all criminals, rogue public officials. A patriot’s beautiful dream, this, to be sure. But a realist recognizes it as a cruel delusion. Being a thoroughly individualistic conception predicated exclusively on the last fourteen words of the Second Amendment, “the individual right” has, and can have, nothing to do with the kind of collective action by ordinary Americans with respect to firearms to which the Amendment’s first thirteen words refer—that is, providing “security” for “a free State” through the “necessary” efforts of “well regulated Militia”.

The history of tyrannies in one country after another during modern times is a collection of horrific facts. In contrast, that Americans exercising “the individual right to keep and bear arms” in mutual isolation could forefend the advent of tyranny in this country, let alone fight off a tyranny once ensconced in power, is a childish fantasy. Usurpation does not give birth to oppression, and oppression mature into tyranny, unless the aspiring usurpers, oppressors, and tyrants can call upon well-armed, -organized, and -trained contingents of myrmidons to stifle public criticism of, frighten political opposition to, and put down actual physical resistance against their rule. So, even with an AR-15 rifle and several thousand rounds of ammunition loaded into 30-round magazines at his side, a lone individual cowering in his cellar cannot hope, solely through his own actions, to defeat the forces of any tyranny worthy of that name. He cannot hope even to defend himself against it for any appreciable length of time. And therefore he cannot reasonably expect to deter it from attacking, enslaving, or murdering him or anyone else.

In sum—

  • “The individual-right theory” is illiterate, illogical, and illegitimate, because it disregards the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment (a fatal demerit in constitutional analysis).
  • “The individual-right theory” radically contracts the scope of the “Arms” the Second Amendment protects, because “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” which it posits is independent of any relationship between those “Arms” and “[a] well regulated Militia”. If the “Arms” at issue were those suitable for any conceivable type of service in the Militia, it would be impossible to identify any“ Arms” the Second Amendment would not protect. But if (according to “the individual-right theory”) the “Arms” at issue are only those suitable for personal protection by an isolated individual, then the Amendment can protect only those “Arms” which such an individual reasonably needs for that purpose under the particular circumstances confronting him—which is a matter, not of straightforward and intelligible constitutional principle, but of conjecture, controversy, and the frothy crap-puccino ladled out by “gun-control” fanatics.
  • “The individual-right theory” acquiesces in unconstitutional limitations on which “people” may exercise “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms”—denying those “people” sixteen and seventeen years of age a right to possess either handguns or long guns, and those “people” eighteen through twenty years of age a right to possess handguns.
  • “The individual-right theory” exposes ordinary Americans to perpetual legislative, judicial, and executive harassment by “gun controllers”, because it pits the mere private interests of individuals against the public interest the government serves—and in this contest the government always has the final say. Experience teaches that “the individual-right theory” cannot prevent “gun control” from being imposed throughout this country step by step, because “gun controllers” will always be able—in the future as they have been in the past—to conjure some “compelling governmental interest” which their latest “reasonable regulation” serves, and to convince the courts that “common sense” commends that “regulation” as imposing “the least-restrictive alternative” on the individuals being “regulated”.
  • “The individual-right theory” deludes ordinary Americans into imagining that, with respect to firearms, individual action is sufficient, collective action unnecessary—when, as history repetitively evidences, only collective action offers any hope of successful deterrence, let alone resistance, against usurpers, oppressors, and tyrants. By inducing inactivity this mental intoxication is particularly pernicious, because in the realm of politics evildoers never sleep, but good men all too often do.
  • Finally, “the individual right” is a right of an ordinary private citizen, asserting personal interests, not a right of a member of a governmental establishment, exercising governmental authority. This enables “gun controllers” to portray “gun control” as a policy proposed in the public interest, and to berate those Americans who oppose “gun control” as “anti-government extremists” acting against the general welfare.
  1. The true “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is to be found in two places: First, in the fullwording of the Second Amendment. The overarching goal of the Amendment is to guarantee the survival of “a free State”. This requires the provision of “security”. “Necessary to the security of a free State” is “[a] well regulated Militia”. And to ensure that “[a] well regulated Militia” always exists in every “free State” in the Union, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. The obvious, unavoidable, conclusion is that the purpose of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is to guarantee that “the people” will always be capable of serving in —and therefore of always having at their own disposal—“well regulated Militia”, through which they themselves can provide “the security of a free State”.

Second, constitutional exegesis should not stop with the obvious. For the Second Amendment does not stand alone. It relates directly to provisions in the original Constitution which also deal with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

To ensure that public officials would always adhere to the correct construction of the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, consisting of “further declaratory and restrictive clauses”, was grafted onto the Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”. Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution (4 March 1789), in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, House Document No. 398, 69th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927), at 1063. Now, obviously, a “misconstruction * * * of [the] powers” which the original Constitution delegated to the General Government would involve a misreading, misinterpretation, or mistaken application of those “powers”—stemming, presumably, from an inadvertent and honest misunderstanding of some sort. Conversely, an “abuse of [the original Constitution’s] powers” would involve an intentional and dishonest extension (or perhaps an intentional and dishonest contraction) of those “powers” in derogation of their legitimate purpose and scope. In either case, the Bill of Rights was adopted, not on the premise that the various actions which its Articles discountenanced were actually permitted by the original Constitution, but rather to ensure that the correct construction of the Constitution—which disallowed those actions in the first place—would be pellucid. Indeed, that the Bill of Rights added “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” plainly indicated that the original Constitution already contained some“ declaratory and restrictive clauses” (whether express or implied) with respect to the subjects the Bill of Rights addressed. In this regard, Alexander Hamilton was correct to write that “the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a BILL OF RIGHTS”. The Federalist No. 84.

Plainly enough, as its reference to “well regulated Militia” proves, the Second Amendment contains “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” which were added to the original Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” with respect to the Militia—namely, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. According to the logic of the Bill of Rights, if these powers were always properly construed and applied by Congress, the President, and the States, Americans would not need the Second Amendment. But because the enemies of “a free State” are always at work undermining its foundations, the Second Amendment exists to ensure that these powers will be so construed and applied no matter what.

Of no small moment is that “the individual-right theory” cannot point to any sentence, clause, or word in the original Constitution which might plausibly need the Second Amendment “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [that sentence’s, clause’s, or word’s] power” with respect to personal self-defense. As the Founders well knew, “[s]elf defense * * * , as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, American Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 3, at 4. There being no imaginable provision of the Constitution which by any “misconstruction or abuse” could purport to “take[ ] away” “the primary law of nature” which cannot be “taken away by the law of society”, there could be no need for an article in the Bill of Rights to prevent such an impossible “misconstruction or abuse”. Thus, the very purpose of the Bill of Rights excludes “the individual-right theory” as an arguable exegesis of the Second Amendment.

As an aside, it is more than merely arguable that the Ninth Amendment protects “the individual right” to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense under some circumstances. The Ninth Amendment provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Plainly, no provision in the original Constitution relates to (let alone enumerates) the right of personal self-defense, Therefore, the Ninth Amendment would not be necessary “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [some nonexistent] power[ ]” relevant thereto. But it would be useful to establish that, notwithstanding the original Constitution’s silence on the subject of personal self-defense, “the people” retain that right in general, in addition to a specific right to employ for that purpose the “Arms” they possess for Militia service.

In any event, anyone who has perused The Sword and Sovereignty or has carefully studied the matter in some other manner understands what “the Militia of the several States” were when the original Constitution incorporated them as such as permanent institutions of government within its federal system in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, and in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. Similarly, every such person understands what the power delegated to Congress “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” entailed at that time (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). Furthermore, every such person understands that the States retained their own powers “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the[ir own] Militia”, because the Militia are “the Militia of the several States” (that is, separate governmental establishments of and within each of the States), not “the Militia of the United States”. That is, “Militia” in the original Constitution is a plural not a singular noun. Moreover, every such person understands that the powers the original Constitution delegated to Congress, and reserved for the States, were then (and are now) simultaneously duties. For “whatever functions Congress are by the Constitution authorized to perform they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform”. United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 560, 567 (1850). And even beyond the application of this general principle to the States, just as it does today the Supremacy Clause of the original Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) disabled them from so disorganizing, disarming, or impairing the discipline of their Militia that the latter would be incapable of being “call[ed] forth [by Congress] to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15), or of being deployed by the States themselves for the States’ own purposes beyond what the Constitution allows for Congress, such as “engaging in War” when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”, which the States may do “without the Consent of Congress” (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).

Any student of this matter also knows that, from their inceptions in Colonial times, “the Militia of the several States” were institutions memberships in which were compulsory—that is, every individual eligible for service in the Militia was under a legal duty to serve. And for every such individual the duty to serve necessarily implied a corresponding right to serve as against anyone who might attempt to interfere with the performance of that duty. Inasmuch as everyone in the Militia (other than conscientious objectors) was required to acquire and possess throughout his time in service one or more firearms, suitable ammunition, and various accouterments, the duty to serve encompassed an absolute “right * * * to keep and bear Arms” of no less longevity. No “compelling governmental interest” could ever have interfered with that right, because service in the Militia was itself the highest of all “compelling governmental interest[s]”, being “necessary to the security of a free State”. In contrast, although “the individual-right theory” does promote a right to acquire and possess firearms, it does not impose, suggest, or even pose the possibility of a duty to do so. Neither does “the individual-right theory” require or encourage anyone to acquire a firearm for the specific purpose of serving in “[a] well regulated Militia”. Indeed, almost all of the proponents of “the individual-right theory” recoil from the word “militia” with the terror that garlic inspires in vampires.

Because the original Constitution incorporated “the Militia of the several States” as such as permanent institutions of government within its federal system (in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, and in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1), neither the States, nor Congress, nor the President, and certainly not the Judiciary, can dispense or interfere with them. In particular, because no “unarmed Militia” or “disarmed Militia” ever existed, or were ever even contemplated, in American pre-constitutional history, there can be no “gun control” of the modern sort which could injuriously affect the Militia, or any members thereof. To the contrary: Where the Militia are concerned, “gun control” involves the provision of firearms to everyone (other than conscientious objectors), not the withholding of as many firearms from as many ordinary Americans as quickly as possible, which is the ulterior, and often even the announced, goal of all contemporary “gun-control” fanatics.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o provide for * * * arming * * * the Militia” in order to enable them to be “call[ed] forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 16 and 15)—not “to provide [against] * * * arming * * * the Militia”, or “to provide for * * * disarming” them, so that those purposes cannot be served. Congress cannot disarm the Militia of the several States, because the Militia must be armed by the States or by the members of the Militia themselves (if Congress does not “provide for * * * arming” them), so as always to be ready to perform, not only those three constitutional functions, but also whatever functions their States may require of them (with which Congress generally nothing to do). The States cannot disarm their own Militia, not only because there are no such things as “disarmed Militia”, but also because disarming their Militia would unconstitutionally interfere with the powers, duties, and rights of Congress to arm the selfsame Militia and to call those armed Militia forth. Moreover, in general, for any State to disarm her Militia would leave the people of that State incapable of providing “the security of a free State” within their State, because the “necessary” means—“[a] well regulated Militia”—would not exist. In particular, such a State would disable herself from “engaging in War” even when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3), a consequence the absurdity of which needs only to be enunciated to be appreciated.

Beyond this, the Declaration of Independence asserts that, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” In practice, however, the people could never enforce this “right” and fulfill this “duty” unless they were, not simply armed as isolated individuals, but instead armed, organized, trained, and disciplined collectively in appropriate Militia units infused with governmental authority as manifestations of the people’s sovereignty. So, unless Americans are ready to dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a childish fantasy, they must demand—and against any and all opposition must enforce their demand—that the Militia always be armed.

Because the Militia must be armed, the people who serve in the Militia must be armed. But who are those people? Everyone familiar with the pre-constitutional Militia—that is, the Militia incorporated into the original Constitution as “the Militia of the several States”—knows that, in general, all free males from 16 upwards to 45, 50, 55, or even 60 years of age (excluding those who were severely physically disabled, who were mentally defective, or in some cases who had been convicted of serious criminal offenses) were required to enroll in the Militia. The lower age-limit turned on the idea that a sixteen-year-old was sufficiently mature to be expected to participate in protection of the community. The upper limit (actually, an exemption rather than an exclusion) turned on the reality that in those days most superannuated individuals suffered from illnesses or disabilities beyond treatment or correction, which excused them from trying to fulfill the paramilitary duties the Militia typically performed. Although at some point compelled today by the constitutional consideration that one cannot be required to serve if he is simply unable to do so, the upper age-limit remains subject to statutory adjustment, just as it was in pre-constitutional times, on the basis of practicality. Today, however, society having advanced in complexity, the Militia would be responsible for many more functions than they were in the Founding Era, functions which could easily be performed by elderly or partially disabled individuals, especially where technical expertise acquired over a lifetime were required. Thus, the people who would exercise “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms” in the Militia would include those from 16 years of age to those just under the age at which they were more or less incapable of “keeping and bearing Arms” at all. Women having been legally emancipated since the Founding Era, this set would include them as well, under conditions appropriately tailored to their peculiar needs.

Analysis must now turn to the question of what sort of “Arms” people enrolled in the Militia would have the right, and the duty, “to keep and bear”. Although many vocal proponents of “the individual-right theory” claim that the Second Amendment entitles all law-abiding individuals “to keep and bear Arms”—or at least firearms—of all sorts, that theory itself advances no objective standard in this regard. Rather, it loosely refers to “Arms” which an ordinary individual, under circumstances typical in contemporary society, would be likely to have at hand to use for personal self-defense. (That, after all, is the gist of the Heller decision, at least as far as some handguns are concerned.) All of these matters, of course, are subject to sufficient doubt, debate, disagreement, and dissension to foster arguments that some “compelling governmental interests” exist for banning this or that type of firearm, or even all firearms, from private citizens’ possession. Indeed, “the individual-right theory” has not prevented lower courts from venturing even more deeply into the thickets of judicial absurdity, to rule that broad categories of “Arms” which undoubtedly could be used for self-defense are not protected by the Second Amendment at all—in particular, as in the Kolbe case, so-called “assault firearms” (such as AR-15 rifles) which the Judges denounced as akin to “weapons of war”.

How does this compare to the “Arms” people enrolled in the Militia would be, not only entitled, but also required by law, “to keep and bear”? Other than conscientious objectors, everyone enrolled in the Militia would be obliged to possess firearms suitable for the various types of Militia duty he (or she) might perform. For just about all persons not suffering from a disqualifying physical disability, this would mandate possession of at least one military-grade “assault rifle” and a military- or police-grade semiautomatic pistol (with ammunition and various accessories). Not Heller, not McDonald, but United States v. Miller provides the applicable principle: A firearm comes within the ken of the Second Amendment if “at this time [it] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”, such that “this weapon is part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1937). So, contrary to the Judges who mangled Kolbe“weapons of war” form the very first rank of the “Arms” which the Second Amendment protects—which should be obvious (even to those Judges) simply from the constitutional authority and responsibility of the Militia to “repel Invasions” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). Actually, each member of the Militia could—and would be encouraged to—acquire in the free market as many firearms of as many types as might be useful for any and every sort of Militia service to which that individual might be assigned by specific orders or in which he might be caught up through adventitious circumstances. That being the case, it would be impossible to imagine any working firearm which could not be included in this set of “Arms”. That, of course, is not the case where “the individual right” is under scrutiny—to which any American who cannot easily acquire an automatic rifle (or even a silly “bump stock”) in the open market will attest.

“The individual-right theory” is also defective because, by its own terms, it applies only to private citizens acting as such, with only the rights, powers, privileges, and immunities which pertain to such individuals. In contrast, at all times individuals enrolled in the Militia are members of governmental institutions—“the Militia of the several States”—exercising the rights, powers, privileges, and immunities which pertain to those institutions. And at some times members of “the Militia of the several States” may be “call[ed] forth to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” in “the actual Service of the United States” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)—then to exercise the rights, powers, privileges, and immunities which pertain to persons “employed in the Service of the United States” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). Thus, where the Militia are concerned, no dichotomy or disjunction exists between mere “private citizens” and “the government”. The Militia are components of the governments of each of the several States all of the time and of the United States some of the time. At no time are they not governmental entities. So individual members of the Militia are always public officials, because within the Militia they exercise public authority for public purposes—indeed, for the most important public purpose of all, because the highest statement of public authority (the Constitution itself) deems them “necessary to the security of a free State”.

Champions of “the individual-right theory” will doubtlessly complain that law-abiding individuals not enrolled in the Militia will not be assured of a “right * * * to keep and bear Arms”. This fear is wildly overblown. To be sure, some individuals not subject to enrollment in the Militia will not be assured of that right—and rightly so. Those who, being less than 16 years of age, are too young to serve in the Militia can claim no “individual right” with respect to firearms today. No responsible person advocates allowing children to purchase firearms on their own accounts, or to possess firearms even for legitimate uses, without close parental or other adult supervision. On the other hand, individuals who became too old or too infirm to continue to serve in the Militia could not be dispossessed of the firearms they had acquired when enrolled in the Militia, because these are their own private property subject to the general constitutional protections of Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). And the very few individuals who for some innocent reasons were never eligible for service in the Militia could not be prohibited from acquiring firearms suitable for purposes of self-defense (Ninth Amendment).

It should be obvious, too, that the absolute “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in order to facilitate their service in the Militia is perfectly compatible with—indeed, is the very best way to effectuate—“the individual right” “to keep and bear Arms” for personal self-defense. Americans today should be as well aware as were the Founders in their own time that self-defense constitutes execution of “the primary law of nature”. The law of society “considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort would be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, American Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 3, at 4. So self-defense is, at its very foundation, a Militia function: namely, the execution of “the primary law of nature” when no law of society can be brought to bear to prevent some irremediable harm. And, self-evidently, as a practical matter everyone who is required to possess firearms suitable for Militia service can also employ those firearms for self-protection (or the protection of others) should the need arise. Thus considered in the correct constitutional context, “the individual right” of self-defense becomes inseparable from Americans’ rights and duties pertaining to the Militia. Moreover, as an aspect of executing the law, self-defense implies an absolute right derived from service in the Militia “to keep and bear Arms” useful for that purpose—which “Arms” will inevitably include numerous types of firearms perfectly adequate for self-defense even if not usually deemed suitable for “executing other Laws”, “suppressing Insurrections”, or “repel[ling] Invasions” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15).

For this commentary to go further than it has would bring owls to Athens. It is enough to ask which the reader would have: the illogical mish-mash which “the individual-right theory” imposes upon a truncated Second Amendment of only fourteen words; or the coherent construction of that Amendment which reliance on all of its twenty-seven words makes possible? The choice is yours. I, however, am under the distinct impression that the exponents of “the individual-right theory” will cling to it no matter what. The reason is subject to conjecture: ignorance, willful blindness, reckless disregard of the facts, a stubborn refusal to admit error? What difference, though, can the reason make now? “No matter what” will all too soon be upon us. Give the “gun-control” fanatics their heads in the 2020 elections, and they will destroy this country in very short order, as sure as shooting. And “the individual-right theory” of the Second Amendment will do nothing to stop them.

© 2019 Edwin Vieira – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Edwin Vieira: edwinvieira@gmail.com

About the Author: Edwin Vieira Jr.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms… He can be reached at his new address: 52 Stonegate Court Front Royal, VA 22630.


Now I present you with the common mans version of why we need guns of all kinds to protect our selves.

It should not surprise anyone for me to claim that our government is our most dangerous enemy and that includes those who claim to support the second amendment. The following is our most proven claim we need to protect ourselves from our government, because it is NOT a legitimate government, it is a for PROFIT corporation totally controlled by foreign millionaires and governments. Human scumbags who would murder their own children to control the rest of us. Their plan is to discourage us to the point of surrender by destroying the economy, creating fear and uncertainty,  bankrupting everyone,  and disarming everyone. They are terrified of those of us who will fight back because they know eventually the military will wake up and stop protecting them, which will leave them with no protection. As long as they control the military they will not give up. And you can take that to the bank!




Ever wonder why you do not understand America’s loss of citizen unity?

 Perhaps it’s a lack of interest in reading, or your inability to concentrate, which comes from focusing on things of no importance!

 You will have your answer if you are unable to read Anna Von Reitz’s, nearly 2,000 articles’ or understand them.




08 21 19 Plaintiffs are Debtors, Defendants are Creditors



 By Anna Von Reitz

This PDF from the Corporate Tribunal’s Administrative Office is evidentiary proof that the Plaintiffs including the “Government” in all these Municipal Court Cases are the Debtors and the Defendants in all cases are the Creditors.


It’s admitted right there in black and white.

So now we have proof in their own hand that what I have told you about them, that they are persecuting their own Creditors is true.  They are persecuting their own Creditors to extract more assets and credit from the Creditors against the Creditor’s will.

This is also the motivation for killing their Creditors just as the Nazis did, to avoid having to pay us back and give them free rein to seize all our “abandoned” property.

Donald Trump as Commander in Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been fully informed of this plot by the Municipal Government and it is yet another reason why the Municipal COURTS which are being operated outside the ten miles square of the District of Columbia must be shut down.

This PDF clearly admits that the purpose of these COURTS is extortion and racketeering under force.

This is being done under the auspices of the British Crown and they are operating under the Holy See.

It’s time for the American Armed Forces to show us what they are made of and for the Queen and the Pope to honor their obligations to us and to the rest of the world in full.

Shut down the criminal operations on our shores. Penalize the British Crown. Release our purloined copyrights. Shut down the Municipal COURTS and Corporate Tribunals. Assist us in peacefully returning our civilian courts to full service throughout the country. Open up access to the American National Credit so that the Creditors are not hamstrung in the interim. Turn aside from all plans to further murder and penalize the innocent civilian populations, or as happened in the days of Elijah, fire will rain down upon the Priests of Baal and they shall be utterly consumed.

See this article and over 1900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com