I think they want the chaos that will ensue so they can claim it is too dangerous for an election and put it on hold for the "emergency).
All gave some, and some gave all. Regardless, none of us gave any freedoms to anyone else. Those come from our Creator, alone.
The DS want us to believe that we are protecting those freedoms by participating in the military actions they force us into. That is a lie, as well. They use that patriotic rhetoric to dupe us into going under the illusion of protecting our Constitution and our freedom. War is a racket.
I believed the rhetoric when I was deployed to the Middle East as a young man. Age and experience dispelled any illusions.
That said, I honor all of those who selflessly serve, even if they are being used by the cabal. Their sacrifices are real, even if the reasons they are sent are lies.
Our Founders specifically warned of the consequences of allowing a standing military. For all intents and purposes, the FBI, and most police organizations fall under that category, as well.
No, but when there are bio-labs funded by the US and China within the Ukraine creating biological weapons, then a country has a right to defend itself as it sees fit.
Obama, Biden, Fauci, and the communist democrats were involved with the creation of COVID-19, and other biological weapons. Obama had the operation moved off of US soil to prevent anyone from catching him, and made deals with China and the Ukraine governments to do the lab work. Why do you think Biden was over in the Ukraine to begin with?
Putin, like anyone else, is human. He may have been ruthless in the KGB, but he seems to be doing what he feels is right for his country. He is 100% in the right with Ukraine.
First of all, the Constitution does not grant that power to government, period. Second, her ruling goes against a primary foundational principle of our Constitutional Republic. That is government being created to protect our inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is our servant, not our sovereign. We are sovereign over our government.
We are all under the same assault.
Yes, somehow the police can be corrupted, but the military is miraculously immune. Have you seen the state of our military lately?
I don't think it is the military that is going to save our Constitution. It is going to be everyone that looks into the mirror and realizes that the people responsible for restoring our Republic and our liberty are the people staring back at them.
The Irish have been fighting oppression for many years. Some of their groups have been labelled as terrorists by those in power ruling over them. However, one thing has been proven true, time and time again. They are far from unarmed.
That American citizens finally figure out that the people most responsible for saving our Republic are staring back at them when they gaze into a mirror. Freedom has a cost, and sacrifices are required. Unfortunately, most Americans today want others to be the one to pay the price so they can go on enjoying their liberty.
Our Founders knew the truth, and put it all on the line themselves. Our Creator made up the difference and history shows our Republic was born from impossible odds.
All power granted to government originates with the People, and is limited to the specific powers specified in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it is the people who are ultimately responsible for reigning in tyrannical government.
Be that as it may, it doesn't change the facts. Woke judges may rule unjustly, but they will all face the one Judgement that none will be able to escape. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if they ignore the law, in the big scheme of things. In the end, our Creator will work it all out.
How do we do that when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit government from infringing on our preexisting, God-given right to bear arms. We can't use the 2nd A, we can only hold government accountable to adhere to the prohibition.
We can, however, exercise our natural right to protect ourselves, our property, and our communities.
All gun bans are unconstitutional. It isn't really a win unless government obeys the Constitution 100% and 100% of the time.
Their ruling goes 100% against the Constitution, and the principles upon which our Republic was established. It is, therefore, null and void.
The foundational purpose of the framing of our Federal Government was to protect our individual rights, including the foremost important right. The right to life.
It has a 100% duty to respect our preexisting rights. That is why they are called inalienable.
America doesn't "allow" gun ownership, or weapons ownership. Americans have an inalienable right to own and carry weapons that comes from our Creator. Government has no authority over this right. The 2nd Amendment prohibits government from infringing in any way on that right.
That database and law is unconstitutional It violates the prohibition on government not to infringe on the preexisting Right to Bear Arms. No legislative act in violation of the Constitution is valid. It is null and void.
Government has no authority to allow, or not allow, any American Citizen from owning or carrying a weapon.
Tyranny, that is how.
They by-passed the Constitution, and Election laws, altogether. That should scare everyone, more than anything else.
No more property tax. Those are in contrast with the founding principle of property ownership. Land Patents would be fully utilized and recognized by government. You can learn more about that here: https://teamlaw.net/land.htm
Thomas Jefferson said it best, no adding any debt that is not fully funded and paid in full within 10 years of enacting it.
Granted, it is at least 80%.
Let the Constitution be our guide. If it is not specifically provided for in the Constitution, then it must be defunded, disbanded, and never allowed to return. CIA, FBI, ATF, IRS, EPA, OSHA, Dept of Education, USCP, ONDCP, OFL, USDA, NOAA, National intelligence agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, FEMA, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice (Huge reduction, return to the original intent), Department of Labor, Department of State (Huge reduction, return to the original intent), Department of Transportation (Reduce to just coordinating Interstates, Railroad, etc for inter-state commerce), Department of the Treasury (Huge reduction, return to the original intent), EEOC, National Council on Disability, most Independent agencies, tribunals, and government-owned corporations. and all Quasi-official agencies. Any other federal government operation not specifically provided for in the Constitution.
Let's also tackle some other unconstitutional practices that have become customary:
- All Legislative Bills must be for a single item. No more multiple item, complex bills.
- No more "delegation" of power or authority of any elected office. For example, Congress cannot delegate any of its duties to any other entity or person.
- All Legislative Bills MUST be easily read and understood my the common man. No more legalese, or complexities intended to confuse the common man.
- Repeal all Amendments that cannot be definitively proven to have been properly ratified, or that go against the original intent of the framers of the Constitution (16th amendment, 17th amendment, and 23rd Amendment)
- Propose “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (or TONA) to ban any American citizen from receiving any foreign title of nobility or receiving foreign favors, such as a pension, without congressional approval. The penalty being loss of citizenship.
- Anchor babies. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all people born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule. All illegal immigrants are subject to a foreign power by virtue of being citizens of a foreign country. Time to enforce that, and roll back citizenship to everyone granted it under false pretenses.
- Pass an amendment that requires proof of citizenship and identity to vote, and requires paper ballots with serial numbers to secure all federal elections. No electronic voting machines, not multiple day vote counts, and not cheating of any type allowed.
If government put them there, the conviction must be suspect.
The burden of proof the founders put in place was that even the mother of the accused would have to be convinced of guilt.
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then the juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty.” ~ Justice Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES, 94, BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.267, 1788.
“But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” ~ Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“Nullification is but one legitimate result in an appropriate constitutional process safeguarded by judges and the judicial system. When juries refuse to convict on the basis of what they think are unjust laws, they are performing their duty as jurors.” ~ Judge Jack B. Weinstein (1921-) United States federal judge Considering Jury “Nullification”: When May and Should a Jury Reject the Law to do Justice?, 30 Am. Crim L. Rev. 239, 240 (1993)
Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).
“By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.” ~ Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham Lord Acton, in The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877)
“In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) [Claude Frederic Bastiat] French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848 What Is Liberty? "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)