If we the people now no longer require that our governments defend what they know is right, how can we ever expect that in the future they will do what they know is right.

Our Nations legislators have become so empowered by this simplicity, of tepid responses, that they now feel perfectly at ease when they present only these surface pretenses of defending their own rights to make and maintain our laws. They now do not even submit to this bear minimum of what is Constitutionally required of their positions to defend their own responsibility of representing the people.

One day these legislators throughout this Nation will realize that they have surrendered all those very reasons for their own existence, and with the gallows support of our peoples posterity these mistakes will be realized and then jealously, and rightfully, defended against. This current generation’s ignorant belief that freedom is free, will confound itself to favor absolute war, absolute division, or absolute surrender.

Sometimes there are National, or State issues that are so gravely important to this of free Government, that a Nation can not afford to trust by its mere chance, that an absolute supposing of judicial veto power would not be the very causing of its own failure to govern for the people. Many British loyalists believed in this convenience, of letting others decide their Nations future.

The title of this post “The Time Machine” is simply intended to orient you the reader generally to my understandings, that it is upon these occasions of our own unreasoned submissions, that we have assured to ourselves, that nothing will be left for our own posterity unless it is made to be allowable under this extreme oligarchy  of the courts.


Published in: on June 29, 2008 at 5:52 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Propertytoarms Ten Miles Square

This Constitution for the United States of America, was amended to prevent the Federal government from abridging the individual rights of the People, whether they were living under the jurisdiction of a State, or not.

“This ten miles square may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states and may . . . become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes! Here the federal courts are to sit . . . what sort of jury shall we have within the ten miles square? The immediate creatures of government!” George Mason

This above quote was a warning by George Mason. Do not place these people under a Constitution, that affords to them, no fundamental protections. This was a gravely ominous foretelling of those otherwise unrestrained Judicial rulings. But now nevertheless this is what these people in DC, and those in our States now oddly enough face because our first ten amendments had been constructed into this Constitution, now that this once trusted and revered Constitutional plan has been turned against us. This has happened because this Constitution has been allowed through our own passiveness, to be reconstructed by those who have not this authority, and this simply because we ourselves have wrongly considered that we are sufficiently not capable of defending it. This unwarranted and un- fathered subjection has now unjustly tasked these people under direct government control with no fundamental protections, except to that of a Federal judiciary which has now upon its own provocations of will, become as if the immediate creatures of that government.

“The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.” – preamble to the amendments.

These amendments and the procedures for adding and declaring a change to any of these declaratory and restrictive clauses, and to this, there affect, were only to be by there proper allowance, specific, and were to be by these directions Constitutionally outlined, to prevent the abuse of this document, by all governments, that can be found within this Federal republic, as well as to this, their own Judiciaries. Our peoples most important Constitutional amendments were never intended to be selectively assigned by this new agent of choice as if, for our Nation, for our States, and for our people, these were to be nothing more then mere directories to this process of permeable government laws.

We the people have now become nothing more then consigned living organisms capable of nothing more then this involuntary movement, precisely because we have neglectfully allowed these Constitutions not to restrain and limit those laws that are unjustly encroaching upon our own individual liberties. This Supreme court’s National liberty to grant these away my fellow Americans has become no better then British Permission by Law.

Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and others wanted a Bill of Rights in the State Constitutions, because they feared that without them these State governments would eventually assume that the peoples rights did not exist beyond that of there own written legislative laws.

If the founding fathers of this Nation had thought that any State, or any Federal legislation, would have been sufficient, or as equal, to a Constitutional deceleration of rights, they simply would have lobbied for legislative statutory laws of protection.

These Constitutional procedures were never to be rewritten by these authorities of this, or any other Judiciary, and certainly these amendments were never meant to be left undefended when the unreasonable gravities of such opinions, as these, are then to become as if a National fact, they have overarched there own authorities.

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” –George Washington’s Farewell Address September 17, 1796

Right of self preservation

The peoples right to keep and bear arms, is their right of self preservation, this is one of those inalienable rights of the people. Those founding principals of this Nation declare it, and our second amendment guaranties it, and even before these rights had been declared, they were ours.

This Video is The first seven minutes of the two-hour documentary “In Search of the Second Amendment,” featuring the introduction and the early English experience.


Published in: on March 19, 2008 at 5:01 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

DC V. Heller « Capital G Geek

DC V. Heller « Capital G Geek

Infringed – means encroached upon, and Encroach means to take by gradual steps.

transcript of the oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court in PDF format. An video version with slideshow is available from (RealPlayer)  For the extra scholarly (or if you just have trouble sleeping) the NRA has made all of the amicus briefs in the case available at

Published in: on March 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

Gun Free Zones

Published in: on February 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

What Matters In Mind

Ownership of property gives no more right to suffrage then not, but those who have properties in land and those who design to achieve it were to be protected in our peoples constitution as well as those who don’t and will not, and to take away the right of security in ownership of real property or even the thought to acquire in security the same, is as intrusive on the minds and persons of man, as it is oppressive on man’s possessions in mind, for to place mind over matter is to dispose of what matters in mind. Is not freedom of the press a matter of persons in mind, And is not the placements of the presses to be a matter to mind, And is not the securities of freedom of speech, and liberty, also reliant upon places of security from whence to speak your mind, How is it that freedom of speech is to be given more refuge and relevancy in our nationally constitutionalized bill of rights then the freedom and security of one of the most prized possession in liberty and opportunity, our homes, our sanctuaries.

Are we now only to be secure in the possessions we are to carry on our persons; And does not the removal of this enumerated right to be secure in one’s home divide this country and its people, Are now our separate states to be allowed to decide the treatments of our liberties in property with deference, or others with indifference, And did not the abhorrent days of slavery in some states, and in some not, divide this country and its people, And will not this new form of servitude, oppression and enslavement of our labors divide us as well.

Published in: on February 22, 2008 at 2:08 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Government theft – Self Serving Permission

There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development
from the other public purposes that we have recognized.”This KELO Majority rule

Properly functioning governments, are governments that are held to certain definable restrictions, and these restrictions are not to be simply left up to their own governments rights to experiment in such unprincipled ways.
And surely our Constitution was not meant to be isolated from its effective use, as it is now being said to be a permissibly perishable thing, under this control of man made laws, for it is these governments themselves which make these laws, and it would not then be of any sensible assurances to us, when our legislatures have proclaimed that they are the ones controlling themselves.

When the Supreme court admitted that it has neither the authority nor the inclinations to describe for a nation what government thievery is, it has at the same time attempted to claim for itself that it still retains its own inclinations, and thus its own authority, to describe for a nation what government thievery is not.

This convoluted reasoning, and this twisted logic, has now made it perfectly clear that this nation can not rely on the judgments of those who rest upon their own opinions of us. We must decide for ourselves what others are claiming is an unascribable national thing, or we will once again be a nation of people who must be lead by their detachable masters own certainties, and not a people who have designed perceivable restraints upon their governments.

If this nation is not capable of controlling what it has created, then what it has created will twist and shape itself until it is no longer recognizable. Not to deny that these atrocities are tending to Intensify themselves expediently, but to deny that they are rightly to continue upon there own success in one part of our nation and not in the next.

Published in: on February 21, 2008 at 5:23 pm  Leave a Comment