Posts Tagged ‘paratroopers’

Thoughts About U.S. Servicemen and Women, Firearms, the Second Amendment, the Rule of Law and Judges

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
U.S. World War II Airborne Paratrooper

A scruffy U.S. World War II Airborne Paratrooper historical reenactor with a M-1 Grand semi-auto rifle slung over his shoulder.

Look at the rifle slung on this U.S. Army World War II soldier re-enactor’s shoulder.

Does sight of that rifle make you nervous? Uncomfortable? Is that rifle a bad gun? Would it be a “bad gun” if it was slung over the shoulder of a Nazi soldier? An Imperial Japanese Army soldier? A Soviet Army soldier? Would it be a “good gun” if an American cop had it? Precisely how can an inanimate object made of wood and metal be “good” or “bad”?

Is there a single documented case were a firearm A) formed the intent to commit an “assault”, B) loaded itself, C) aimed itself, and D) pulled its own trigger?

If not, does one have to suffer from some kind of mental illness to pejoratively call firearms “assault weapons”? In the alternative, do the people who call firearms “assault weapons” have an agenda? Are these people Liberty Thieves? Freedom Haters? Tyrant Wannabees? Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees? Control Freaks? Usurpers? Do they want to disarm you so they can push you around? Control you? Confiscate your property? Deny you liberty? Cram their agenda down your throat? Incarcerate you? Punish you? Kill you?

Why should any reasonably constituted person obey or support anyone so mentally ill that they would call a non-living object incapable of forming an intent to commit an assault “an assault weapon”?

Why should any reasonably constituted person obey or support anyone with an agenda that should set off alarm bells?

Question: What is the only thing a firearm can do without human intervention?

Answer: Self-destruct via a mechanism called “rust” [which is the opposite of commiting an "assault".]

Assuming the man in this picture was a real American soldier who had come off a battlefield [or was ready to go into battle to protect "our way of life",] what do you think he would–or should–tell a judge, a panel of judges, Congress critters, state lawmakers, and/or a local cop, if those public servants told him, in that situation, when he get home and become an ordinary civilian, or when you retire honorably from the US Armed Forces, you will have no individual right to a firearm and governments’ agents can–and will–legally defang [disarm] him? And what if these officials told this American fighting man forward deployed, in combat, to protect “our way of life”, when this vet returned home he would find an America were officials made it a crime for him to buy a gun? A gun with certain features? Any gun? And they also made it a crime for him to have too many guns? Or a gun for lawful self-defense? Defense of others? Defense of community? Defense of the nation? Or a gun in public? Or a gun not locked up?

What would this American fighting man say to these officials if they told him the same core argument tyrants historically have made for centuries, namely, Security and public safety demands one more restriction, one more curtailment of liberty?

I am positive that what I will write next will infuriate many and will cause some to experience a mental vapor lock. Nevertheless, I will write it regardless.

If only as a matter of a “Dirty Harry” type fantasy, my preference would be for our combat vets [ex-military with combat experience,] our activde duty Armed Forces service members, and ordinary armed civilians to tell the Usurpers, the Liberty Thieves, the Freedom Haters, the Control Freaks, the Self-Anointed Elitists, the Tyrant Wannabees, and their Useful Idiots, “Hell no! If you want to disarm me, you have to take my gun by the hot barrel first.”

Seriously, if these Usurpers persisted, and acted in such a way that they could not be given a legitimate, full fledge, trial, with all of the earmarks of a meaningful Due Process of Law, on a charge of treason, I would experience great comfort if our combat vets [discharged or active duty] and/or if ordinary armed Amercian civilians became proactive, and, if necessary, to stop our free fall toward tyranny, used their firearms as Liberty’s Teeth to put an end to usurpations and to restore constitutionalism, namely, a return to functioning with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution’s text’s commands, as written, not as interpreted away by judges who fudge on the law and who, therefore, no longer function as Guardians of Liberty.

If the Usurpers would not yield to a show of armed resistance to their usurpations, if they would not put back on their necks their constitutional collars, if they would not remain tied down by the chains of the constitution’s commands, I would experience further comfort if the U.S. Armed Forces, American combat vets, and armed ordinary citizens removed from power the Usurpers and incarcerated them.

If the Usurpers did not peacefully yield to that outcome, I am also receptive to the use of lethal force against the Usurpers to stop them, to remove them, and to send a message: A) Public Servants who morph into functioning as Public Serpents will no longer be tolerated; B) every word in the U.S. Constitution’s text has importance and an established definition; C) every definition has meaning; D) meanings have consequences; E) “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” has consequences; F) the armed American citizenry is the world’s largest, potentially most lethal and effective, latent guerrilla force; G) before a Tyrant Wannabee can occupy and impose tyranny in the U.S. that person must first disarm Americans; I) that will never happen; and J) usurpations have consequences.

The Usurpers’ crimes under color of law are not the law and not a substitute for the real law. Instead, their usurpations are their crimes under color of law–treason or civil rights violations or both and chains around us–citizens, voters, home owners, taxpayers, and we are unjustifiably weighed down and burdened by those chains. It is far better, far wiser, and prudent for us to throw off those chains, put the constitution’s chains back on the Usurpers, tie them down by the Constitution’s chains, hold them to the Constitution’s commands, exercise oversight control over them, take command of the situation, go on offense, act like a Public Master over the Public Serpent, hold the Public Serpent accountable, and stop acting as a mere consumer, as mere Sheeple, and as a mere Tourist in our own country, which is dying from within because its citizens have lost their love of liberty and are too gutless to stand up to and rebuke Public Serpents.

The U.S. World War II generation, with its allies, won World War II. That war ended with GIs occupying Berlin and Tokyo. That generation earned that accomplishment, to their credit; however, after they won that war, failed to exercise adequate citizen oversight control over their home grown Usurpers, namely, they lost the Battle for Constitutionalism at home. They not only lost that war they helped to lose it by A) electing and re-electing public serpents who wipe their ass with the U.S. Constitution and B) by not exercising oversight control over public serpents who they elect and re-elect and who they obey, willy-nilly.

America’s combat vets and active duty Armed Forces have not told these public servants: you put a gun in my hand in World War II, during the Korean War, during the Vietnam War, during Bosnia, during the Caribbean adventures, during the invasion of Panama, during Desert Storm I, during the Iraqi occupation, and for Afghanistan. You told me, here’s a gun; fight; kill the enemy, but, now, you bastards, you bitches, you serpents, your traitors, you judicial scumbags, you blue belly cop bastards, all of you who give lip service to the “Rule of Law” and to our veterans and fighting men and women, you dare to tell us now that we are civilians, taxpayers, home owners, and voters, you have lawful authority to defang us, to make us totally dependent on you to protect our mortal existence on Earth. Hell no! Rights codified in the Constitution are not self-enforceable. Hence, I shall, I do, breathe life into them. My rifle speaks for me. Bang. Guess what? The traitor is dispatched. One by one, they wet their pants. They scurry for cover. They either frantically embrace constitutionalism or they are dispatched.

As unpleasant, as snarly, and as problem filled as that scenario is, it is undisputed fact that a dead usurper never rose from the dead, never usurped again, some usurpers are so flagrant, so repetitive, so unrepetant, and so obnoxious they are virtually begging to be killed, there is evil in the world, and traitors do not need to be suffered and should not be suffered.

From that perspective, I have serious issues with our combat vets, our active duty Armed Forces, and most American civilians. Point: Reasonably constituted people comprehend hostility when a foreign power crosses an international border with arms to subjucate a defeated nation. Most such people, however, do not comprehend that home grown traitors wage aggression with words, with language, with twisted concepts, and, by claiming they uphold the law the most when they violate it the most.

Usurpers shuffle laws like a card shark shuffles a deck, e.g., “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” means, allegedly, that ordinary American citizens have no right to any firearm or that government and its agents may impose “reasonable limits” on a “right” that “shall not be infringed.” Even God cannot logically do what the Usurpers dare to do: impose “reasonable limits” against a right that “shall not be infringed.”

There is a material difference between a “right” and a “privilege”. To “permit” is to “control”. Control is the antithesis of liberty. “Gun control” never disarmed an armed criminal. “Gun control” is “people control” in the guise of “crime control”. People control is control. Control is not Liberty.

The local news said last night [13 December 2009] that the State of California spent $43 million dollars last year to pay for body guards for six senior State of California officials! That is approximately $7 million dollars per official. Those officials were instrumentall in running this state, the so-called “Golden State,” into the ground, financially, and they have the audacity to trigger another $43 million in red ink to protect themselves! From whom? They people their usurpations abused?

These senior officials hate the Second Amendment, and they hate the concept of an armed citizenry. They are flaming hypocrites. They think their hides are special and are worth $43 million in annual body guard proctection. No wonder. By setting themselves up as Self-Annointed Elitists, above and agaisnt the U.S. Constitution and We the People, and by usurping power, they made enemies.

Scholars have recorded that George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, this nation’s first three presidents, had an open door policy for ordinary citizens to gain access to them, and the ordinary citizen was, at the citizen’s absolute discretion, armed while in close proximity to those U.S. Presidents. Today, the Secret Service wants a huge gun free zone around a U.S. President, as if the laws do not apply when the President is near by.

A compelling argument can be made that the U.S., unconstitutionally, without a formal Congressional declaration of war, irresponsibly and foolishly, went way out of its way to send its Armed Forces to Iraq to pull down from power Saddam. Going to war is a serious matter. To commit this nation’s Armed Forces and national treasure and economy and prestige is serious. It is serious even with a formal Congressional declaration of war. It is even more serious without a formal Congressional declaration of war.

There are compelling good reasons for the constitutional requirement for a formal Congressional declaration of war. If this nation cannot muster the political will via a majority vote in Congress to formally declare war, as required by the Constitution’s text, there are probably compelling reasons to be cautious, to be prudent, to not go to war.

Nothing in the Constitution’s text, as written, authorizes Congress to delegate its sole power to declare war to a U.S. President, with the approval of the U.S. Supreme Court and with the approval of the United Nations. Despite that lack of Constitutional text that expressly authorized what was done [waging war without a formal Congressional declaration], the entire U.S. Federal Government, all three branches of our government, and our “professional” Armed Forces who swore an oath to support that Constitution [as written], all played a major role in having this nation send its “professional” Armed Forces off to fight a “war” that Congress never formally declared, when Congress has had at least nine years to so declare.

Historically, this nation has never lost a war that Congress formally declared. Historically, this nation does not do well with it attempts to fight an undeclared war. Even if it does well, militarily, on the battlefields, after casualties mount and the costs becomes prohibitive, the enemy has ended up winning the war, politically, because Americans have a track record of being unable to fight and to win, over a distance, a war fought in “cold blood” [no formal declaration of war] instead of a war fought in “hot blood” [with a formal Congressional declaration of war].

Given our track record, an enemy knows that for him to win he simply has to endure and attrite Americans and its Allies enough to wear us down, to grind us down politically. Our enemies excell at doing that.

Senior government American officials and media elites opine that the Taliban fund their war effort from the Afghanistan poppy fields which are used to make opium which is sold on the world market. I smell a big sticking rat. How many U.S. Armed Forces personnel does it take to destroy those poppy fields? The U.S. used aircraft to spray poison on miles upon miles of Vietnam jungle, yet, nine years later, those poppy fields still exist. Why? Are senior U.S. officials [civilian or military or both] somehow benefitting from those poppy fields so they do NOT want them destroyed? In context, those poppy fields have “strategic” value? The U.S. Army Air Force bombed Polesti oil fields during World War II because they had “strategic” value, to deny the Nazi war machine oil. By the same logic, why do we not destroy the poppy fields? Why do we not do that and then give the Afghan poppy field grower compensation and/or teach him to grow something else? Something is seriously wrong some place? Afghans already know how to shoot. They are in good physical condition. It does not take 9-15 years to learn small military infantry or anti-guerrilla tactics. The U.S. is allowing itself to bleed to death in Afghanistan. Do the people who push a gun grabbing agenda in the U.S. want to send our Armed Forces overseas, to be slaughtered, to be weakened, to gut the U.S. Armed Forces, to accelelrate the wear and tear on their expensive equipment, because they have an ulterior agenda? If so, what might that agenda be?

The commanding U.S. Army general in Afghanistan is Gen. McCrystale [sp?] The media reports he is the same general who authorized and ordered a cover up of the truth about the death of the NFL star football player, Tillman, who joined the U.S. Army, became a U.S. Army Ranger, and was killed by not-so friendly “friendly fire” in Afghanistan. If it is true that Gen. McCrystale ordered that cover up he acted unprofessionally, and he squandered his integrity and his credibility. Thus, I do not trust that man. I believe the odds are high that he is, in some aspects of his military persona, an unpricpaled, expediant, “political” type general whose advice is untrustworthy. That general might be exceedingly compentent as an anti-Taliban general, but, if that is true, he undercut his usefulness by squandering his credibilty if it is true that he did indeed order a coverup arisng from how Tillman was killed.

There are a lot of public serpents in this nation that need to be pulled down from power [preferably by the vote, by impeachment, and by public rebuke,] and, if necessary, by a rope or by a bullet.

This is not merely a matter of a difference of opinion. This is a matter of constitutional text and constitutionalism, namely, obeying our Constitution’s text, as written. Why? Because A) that is what the Framers and the Ratifiers agreed to, B) our Constitution declares it is the Supreme Law of the Land, C) its commands are good ones, and D) the problems do not start with our Constitution’s text; instead, they start with our officials’ deviations from that text and citizens’ constitutional ignorance and willingness to submit to public serpents’ usurpations.

For advance study, read (1) Harvard Law School graduate Edwin Vieira, Jr.’s “Constitutional ‘Homeland Security’ Volume 1: The Nation in Arms; (2) attorney John Wolfgram’s “How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition” [available for free on the Internet]; and (3) Larry D. Kramer’s [Dean, Stanford Law School], “The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.”

Americans do not need to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to find Talibans. The United States is plagued with home grown American Talibans, many of whom hold an elected or an appointed government job. These people function as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution.

There are more domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution than there are foreign ones. These domestic ones are worse than the foreign ones. They are worse because they are already here, they hold positions of high public trust, they have abused that public trust by their usurpations, they have morphed into public serpents, they have committed treason with abandonment–from within, they are unrepentant, they are working to accomplish their unconstitutional agenda, they are an enemy within the gates, they are clever, they are disengenuous sworn oath violators, they lie for and they cover up for each other, and they are heretics.

Hillary Clinton, for example, is a notorious would-be gun grabber. She also said, often, when running to become a U.S. President, that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Liar! Yet, she is now the U.S. Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton, another notorious would-be gun grabber, said he did not have sex with that woman. Liar. At a minimum, oral sex is sex. Yet, the electorate would probably re-elect him if he was eligible to run again.

The current Secretary of the Treasury, who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, did not pay part of his taxes and he offered a lame excuse for why he did not pay everything he owed, but, he now holds a high appointed office.

President Obama, while running to be elected President, told an audience in Utah or Wyoming or Montana, someting to this effect [paraphrased], “You need not worry about me taking your guns. If you vote for me, as your President, I will allow you to keep your guns.” A man who earned a law degree who believed that the Second Amendment codified an individual right ot arms would never express himself that way, would never say, “I will allow you . . . ” to keep your guns. “Allow”? “Allow” is akin to “permit”, which reduces the “right” to a mere “privilege”. “Allow” implies a U.S. President has actual authority to ban and confiscate privately held firearms.

The core essence of Talibanism is twisting a decent or good concept [e.g., the Koran, the Bible, and/or the U.S. Constitution] beyond recognition to promote an uncivilized and an unlawful agenda, for selfish, indefensible reasons, by means of ruthlelss, unprincipled, force.

In the United States, the real battle is not between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, government agents and citizens. The real battle is between Constitutionalists and the Anti-Constitutionalists. And the real battle within that battle is this: How can citizens hold government, and its agents, accountable for their persistent, on-going, violations of the United States Constitution?

Americans, be they office holders or ordinary citizens, should stop paying lip service to out Constitution, stop selectively embracing those parts of it that we like while underenforcing or disregarding those parts of it that we do not like, and, if we want to change it, adhere to the formal legitimate amendment process and stop circumventing that process by interpreting away the Constitution’s text in violation of “clear bright lines” and “constitutional stop signs”, such as, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What follows next is ultra important. It is a conceptual break through to understanding what has gone wrong and is wrong. It goes a long way to explaing this Land of Sweet Liberty has morphed into a Land of Sour Oppression Under Color of Law.

In a nutshell: The U.S. Supreme Court has invented two illegitimate doctrines: “the Doctrine of Immunity for Government’s Agents” and “the Doctrien of Judicial Supremacy”. These two illegitimate doctrines, together, mean this: 1) the U.S. Supreme Court, allegedly, is the absolute final arbiter of what the U.S. Constituiton says, means, and how it should be applied, and 2) lawmakers, judges, government executives, prosecutors, and cops [just about any one really important in government] have absolute or qualified immunity for what they do as a government official. Ponder that. Those concepts have this effect: 1) “Judicial Supremacy” destroys the idea of three “co-equal” branches of government because it puts the judiciary above and against the other two, which makes the judiciary, not Congress, the ultimate law maker, and, that in turn, makes Americans subject to a new form of depotism–Judicial Depotism, and 2) it grants governments’ agents legal protection from legal liability and financial protection from having to pay damages to citizens against whom they commit constitutional torts, namely, violations of citizens’ rights.

These two judicially invented concepts do not appear any where in the U.S. Constitution’s text. These concepts are totally foreign to that text.

The “Supremes” [who are "supreme" only because they are the end of the legal line of appeal, not because they are intellectually or morally superior], have even gone as far as to issue case decisions that hold this: If it can be proven that a judge had a vested personal interest in a case, which he kept secret, and, that judge, for malicious, vindictive, selfish, immoral, reasons, deliberately and knowingly, grossly violated a citizen’s rights, and even ordered the citizen to be imprisoned for life or even be executed, as long as the judge did what he did in his “judicial capacity” the judge is 100% immune becasue, to allow otherwise, would be to make the judge too afraid to fearlessly do his duty for fear he would be subject to being sued and be held liable, and it would interfere with the judge’s duty if he had to spend time defending against lawsuits. Such broad immunity for a judge gives a judge power and legal protection that approaches the bankrupt old European concept that hereditary kings had a divine right to rule arbitrarily with no accountability whatsoever.

Such a rationale in support of absolute immunity for judges is non-meritorious. Immunity encourages and emboldens public serpents to be incompetent, reckless, lazy, callous, ruthless, and malicious.

The First Amendment’s “Right to Petition” Government for Redress of a Grievance is substanitally worthless when the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that most, if not all, of governments’ key officials enjoy absolute or qualified immunity. That is the rub. Immunities allow government and its agents to run amuck, to oppress, under color of law, with no accountability.

The U.S. held Saddam accountable.

Question: How do peaceful, law-abiding U.S. citizens how the U.S. Federal Government, State Government, and Local Government, and their Agents accountable when they all enjoy a vast array of immunities, enforced by the courts, the cops, and the U..S. Armed Forces?

Questions: Have governments’ agents slipped their constitutional collar? Put their chains on Americans?

Answer: I am not a fan of Sara Palin, but to mimic her in this instance, “You betcha!”

Mankind’s greatest achievement is the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution? Why? Because it codified the existence of meaningful rights that put finite limits on government’s power, that ended, supposedly, forever, in the U.S., the old European idea of the Divine Right of Kings to Rule Arbitrarily Without Accountability to Anyone. Sadly, the Doctrine of Immunity substantially guts the Bill of Rights and makes those rights unenforceable or, enfroceable, only per the government’s grace, via its judges, as to what they say the Bill of Rights means, because they claim they are the sole legitimate final arbiter of what the Constitution means.

Questions: Along the way, what happened to “We the People”? To “the consent of the governed”?

Answer: Citizens stopped exercising oversight control.

Here is the kicker. This “kicker” is the functional equivalent of a thermonuclear cerebral bomb that explodes in the mind: First, “Judicial Supremacy” makes the judiciary the New King George. Americans, after paying trillions upon trillions in tax tribute have swaped out an English King for home grown Judicial Despotism, and second, “Immunity” makes a mockery, a total sham, of these concepts which are key to America’s claim to moral leadership of the Free World, namely, the U.S. is a land of laws, where no man is above the law, and where every citizen is guaranteed and enjoys “Due Process of Law.” These claims are flagrant false advertising.

Question: How can a judge logically violate the U.S. Constitution that he or she swore to uphold, support, and defend and get away with that without being held accountable?

Answer: It is easy to do. American judges do it all of the time. Here is how: A) they invent and grant themselves absolute immunity for everything they do in their judicial capacity as a judge; B) they hide behind that unconstitutional grant of immunity for themselves; C) they treat their case decisions as the controlling law, not the U.S. Constitution; D) they interpret away everything in the Constitution they do not like or that restricts their powers or discretion; E) they invented another doctrine–Judicial Immunity, which declares that they alone are the final arbiter of what the U.S. Constitution means and how it should be applied, which makes the Judiciary the dominnat branch of government; F) they motivate the other branches of government to go along with their grab for power by granting governments’ agents in those branches immunity also; G) they cheat; H) they lie about how they cheat; I) they express themselves in language that sounds plausibly legitimate and correct to the masses who lack comprehensive intense formal legal taining; and J) they punish people who challenge their authority or who criticize them by ruling against them, by imposing sanctions [financial fines] and by ordering them incarcerated by contempt of court.

Questions: Can the “Doctrine of Judicial Immunity” and the “Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy” logically co-exist with a judge’s sworn oath to uphold, support, and defend the U.S. Constitution? With the idea that in the United States “no person is above the law”? With the concept of “Due Process of Law”? With the concept of the “Right to Petition For Redress of Grievance(s)”? How effective is the Right to Petition when it is the judge assigned to the case who violated the law? Who hides behind absolute immunity? Who has the power to dismiss the case? The power to impose sanctions? The power to order incarceration? Why should a judge be allowed to violate the very law he/she swore to uphold? What is so special about judges that they can violate the law with impunity and no accountability?

In the real world, what does “Due Process of Law” mean for the ordinary American citizen who is not affluent or is not politically well connected? The sobering, stark reality is this: Even though “Due Process of Law” is intended to be an absolute affirmative command from “We the People” to government and its agents that “We the People” are constitutionally guaranteed and entitled to “Due Process of Law”, the patently pathetic reality is that most of governments’ agents, including judges, do not embrace and do not take that command seriously. For them, “Due Process of Law” means only governments’ agents, while hiding behind their immunities and their self-annointed aire of superiority, will routinely dish out only that measure of “process” that they arbitaryily deem citizens are “due”.

That dynamic will continue until the oppressors comprehend that their gig is up, that the oppressed [citizens] have reached the limits of their tolerance for such oppression. Reformulated, governments’ agents will oppress until they sense–and see or experiece credible evidence–that citizens are willing, able, and ready to resort to armed resistance. That is Reality Check Number One. That is Political Hardball. The life of the law is not determined by logic. It is determined by experience, and armed resistance to usurpations shapes and makes the law.

Reality Check Number Two: Government Agents in the U.S. are overdue for a lesson in Triggernometry 101.

Mao Tse-Tung was correct when he opined, “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” That is why many American government officials push an anti-individual right to a gun agenda and want to ban and confiscate privately held arms. They do not want “to serve”. They want “to control”. They know that “to control”, they must first disarm Americans.

More questions: When Government and its agents have deviated so extremely from the Constitution’s text, and have invented for themselves multiple layers of legal protection, what’s a citizen to do? Yield and wear the yoke? Submit to a boot on their neck? Sue . . . and run head on into the legal wall of immunity? Vote the usurpers out of office . . . only to replace them with a new crop of officials who enjoy the same immunities, from which they, too, will hide behind when they usurp? Or, as a logical last ditch effort, take up arms to enforce their rights? To return to constitutionalism?

Do not be surprised if the United States implodes. The Constitutionalists’ patience and tolerance for the Anti-Constitutionalists’ usurpations is not unlimited.

The United States is currently like a giant oak tree, but it is dead on the inside. It is vulnerable to catching fire or to simply falling down. Why? Because most of its citizens have lost their love of liberty, prefer comfort and “security” to liberty, and are so docile they are willing to step into cattle cars and be hauled off to detention centers or worse. Some citizens, however, are willing to fight and will fight and their fight will be “a just war.”


Still more questions: Do you have the courage to defy usurpations? To publicly rebuke usurpers? To demand that your rights be upheld? To use lethal force, if necessary, to enforce your rights? To obey the Constitution’s text and commands, as written? To renounce your usurpations? To embrace a return to constitutionalism?