Take everything you learned and question it. We could start with the 2nd Amendment, but what is driving the overall destruction?

right to bear arms

Let me say, right away, that you can take “my slant” on this at will.  You can take videos and links I link to and “their slants” on it at will, but overall, I think with research, you will come up with the same kind of conclusions.  It may differ (their slant and mine) and I ask you to make up your own mind.  Take from me what you will, and take from the others what you will.  However, my belief is that you will walk away with something totally different (either way) than with what you have been taught, and that overall, Grasshopper, is a good thing.

Not saying the Zionists were behind this, but the time frame fits.  The Zionists certainly did need their Goyim armed!  Ready to fight for The Greater Israel Project.  Maybe not, but the hoodwinking had to be something only a Zionist could come up with, as the hoodwinking does fit.  Let’s try a Timeline:

Greater Israel karta2 (1) (2)

Screenshot 2017-10-22 15.04.02

Herzl was writing in 1895 and less than 10 years later, 2 things happened.  First:
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902, invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ← This we are going to concentrate on.

The other was the establishment of “Christian Zionism” with the introduction of the Scofield Bible, 1909, which I have covered in other blogs.  However, for this blog, the fact is that getting Goyim is one thing.  Getting them to do your fighting for you is another.  The Zionists have always wanted to use their “American Goyim” to accomplish their goals, but the 2nd Amendment stood in the way.

You see, the 2nd Amendment was actually written to “Prevent Wars”.  It was taken from the “State Constitutions” which were a little more descriptive in it.  Here are 3 examples:
1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Now that was the NORTH, but the South was also interested in keeping Military Power away from the Federal Government as they wanted to protect Slavery. The South felt the same, and said so, although their reasoning might be different.


Most appropriately:

Article I, § 13 of the Virginia Constitution states:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

Either way, it was argued over 100 times in the Supreme Court (and won) that the right to bear arms was NOT the point of the 2nd Amendment, and it did not give anyone a right to bear arms. Only should they wish to be in a “Well Trained Militia”.

Judge Scalia was the deciding vote the last time, and he mentioned that “although this is true”, that every American should have the right to bear arms, but that the Government could decide which kind.

Judge Scalia was an NRA advocate and a complete frigging Jerk, but further amazing is it that even your top people in Politics say (and believe) that the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms, when in fact it is as explained in the State Constitutions:

“as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

The Federal Government under the 2nd Amendment is not ALLOWED to have a “Standing Army”. Yet the Dick Act that destroyed the 2nd Amendment was not even ratified as the 2nd Amendment was.

You see the 2nd Amendment was written after the people escaped “Merry Ol’ England” and during their time there, they had seen a history of wars.  The last British Bill of Rights that mentioned the “Right to Bear Arms” was in 1689.  It was called a right, but in reality, it was an obligation.

There were no Police (except in cities) for the most part, and people lived by the “Hue and Cry”.  This is where you would yell “Stop Thief” and everyone within earshot was REQUIRED by law to apprehend the felon.  This was the reason the King gave for the right to bear arms to be re-written in the bill.

From the ninth century, medieval England was a monarchy and a comparatively centralized state. It was also a society that was organized for war, yet the Crown had no standing army or navy. The defense was largely a matter for local militias, but the Crown had various powers to summon men to assist in defense and, from Norman times, to assist in the invasion of France. Sometimes, the king tried to insist that all able-bodied men had the duty to serve, at other times he called on the landowners to assist him. At all times, it is clear that the men who were summoned to fight were expected to provide and bring suitable weapons with them, according to their ‘station’ in life. In other words, there was an obligation to bear arms, rather than a right.  The armed Citizenry was really (in fact) meant to fight wars with.  Fodder for war, if you will.

The King would start his wars with his “Standing Army”, and then call on the Citizens to fight for “King and Country”.  The Colonies (when first started) were well aware of this.

They did not wish to disarm themselves, but they also did not want “Whoever Ruled” (King or Congress) to have a “Standing Army” to fight Wars with.

Although taken from the State Constitutions, when the 2nd Amendment was taken from them, it copied all BUT the part about “Standing Armies”.  Argued at the time, it should remain in, it is my thoughts that those who argued that “everyone knew what it was about anyway” were just planning on leaving this “loophole” open for Standing Armies in the future.  Yet anyway, that is the history in it.

The 2nd Amendment was Ratified!

Screenshot 2017-10-22 15.35.54

The “Dick Act” is another story.  It was NOT ratified!  Yet it destroyed the 2nd Amendment! The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902, invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia, and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex-post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England, an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

“The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

The Militia is the Answer 1&1/4 hrs

 

1917

The Balfour Declaration

 

Wink, Wink… Nudge, Nudge.

Comments

comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.