The American Revolution was lost through treason

The Founders of the united States, the moneyed, privileged elite of the
era, put, not their own interests first, as greedy politicians have done
since, but rather, in sacrifice, put their new nation, and the liberty of
its lowliest inhabitants, first.
Practical men all, with understanding of the historic philosophers and
with recent bitter experience in the expectations of their fellows, they
nonetheless put above all else what Jefferson termed in our magnificent
Declaration of Independence: "'Governments' are instituted among Men,
deriving their just 'Powers' from the Consent of the Governed," to
"SECURE" Mankind's "inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness," and that "whenever any Form of 'Government'
becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute a new 'Government,' laying its
Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its 'Powers' in such Form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,"
specific terms not included merely for dramatic flourish, but rater as
statements of practical intent.
That framework freed talented human beings to become productive busy
bees, to enjoy hedonistic pursuits without guilt, to worship or not
worship the God of their choice (if any), to keep the fruits of their
labor, and to not have to worry about the proverbial knock on the door.
and what awaits them when the door is opened. or broken down.
These inalienable rights survive the formation of society and the
creation of "government."
Any person or group who would in any manner whatsoever infringe your
God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to life by means of
immediate defense, keeping and daily bearing arms in public, isn't a
lover of your life, or those of your precious family's.
They evidence no reverence for those lives, nor are they even mere
respecters of those lives.
No, in fact, they demonstrate an utter malicious abhorrence and insidious
contempt of those lives by their absolute refusal to fervently nurture
them.
Throughout their voluminous writings, every Founder's philosophy can be
proved to be in line with that pervading desire, converted from mere
prose into law.
The right to life of necessity implies that the individual has the
inherent right, not privilege, to immediately protect that life through
whatever means necessary.
"The right to be armed is the security without which every other is
insufficient." -Thomas Babington Macauley
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them." -Richard Henry Lee
"A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the
ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion
of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion. in
private self defense." -John Adams
"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave
them." -George Mason
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnston
"Now the natural right of self-defense is nothing more than the liberty
which the law of nature allows us of defending ourselves from an attack
which is made upon our persons or of taking such measures as may guard
against any injuries we are likely to suffer from another." -Henry St.
George Tucker
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in
government." -Thomas Jefferson
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to
shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that
siren till she transforms into beasts. The battle, sir, is not to the
strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave... The great
object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
...tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were
given up from the People? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation
ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and
the purse. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our
own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing
to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and prepare for it. Gentlemen
may cry, 'peace, peace' -but there is no peace. Is life so precious, or
peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as
for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
In the struggle to pass the Fourteenth Amendment, the defining moment
came when patriotic representative Thaddeus Stevens eloquently observed,
"What are those rights, privileges and immunities? Without excluding
others, three are specifically enumerated -life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. It follows that everything necessary for their
establishment and defense is within those rights. Disarm a community and
you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of
defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty. the
Fourteenth Amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole
question."
In the words of the nation's first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Louis
Brandeis, "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions
favorable the pursuit of happiness...They sought to protect Americans in
their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They
conferred, as against the 'Government,' the right to be let alone- the
most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State
was to make men free to develop their faculties. They valued liberty both
as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of
happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. Those who won our
independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political
change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. Our
'government'... teaches the whole People by its example. If the
'government' becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it
invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
The courageous Founders, who willingly gave up lives of privilege and
luxury, purposely framed a country where gangs of armed strangers were,
not permitted, under sufferance, but rather, possessed the inalienable
right to assemble even in the Founders' presence, even in the very
capitol of the nation.
Treasonous politicians have unconstitutionally passed mala prohibita laws
barring, not predatory criminals, but instead law-abiding citizens from
the God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed inalienable right to
justifiably immediately protect their own lives and those of their
precious families.
The unconscionable result is that Washington, our nation's capitol, named
for our greatest leader, a man of impeccable integrity, the country's
opinion of the best we're capable of, a shining beacon that we offer to
people the world over as a sterling example of what they can aspire to,
has become merely Washington, the District of Corruption, with the
highest crime rate in the nation.
In the March twenty-second 1996 edition of the Washington Post,
Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, special assistant to the D. C. mercenary
proxy-guardian "police" chief and President of the Black [mercenary
proxy-guardian] "police" Caucus, railed, "[Extremist victim disarmament]
has not worked in D.C. The only people who have [firearms] are criminals.
We have the strictest "[extremist victim disarmament] laws in the nation
and. the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your [illegal] Smith
& Wesson than to dial nine-one-one if you're being robbed!"
Although their populations are fairly close, a person is over twenty
times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the District of
Columbia than in Vermont.
Tranquil Arlington Virginia neighbors Washington D. C., but in 2001,
Washington D. C.'s murder rate per hundred thousand was sixty-nine, while
Arlington's was only one point six!
In 1976, there were seven hundred two thousand citizens living in D.C.
and one hundred eighty-eight murders.
By 1996, there were five hundred forty-three thousand citizens (less) and
three hundred ninety-seven murders (more).
The city fathers were ecstatic: legal defensive firearms had disappeared
in D.C. -from only the hands of the law-abiding.
Of course, there're more illegal firearms than ever in the hands of
predatory criminals, and they've an unconstitutionally disarmed public to
prey upon at their whim.
You haven't heard Dan Rather talk about this, nor can you expect to hear
it from Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw, but during the first three months
of the war, more Americans were murdered in our nation's capitol than
were killed in Iraq!
Clear-thinking Republican Representative Mark Souder if Indiana remarked,
"The District of Columbia is a failed laboratory experiment for
[extremist victim disarmament]. It has one of the most comprehensive bans
on firearms in the nation, and it also has one of the highest violent
crime rates in the nation. In fact, in 2002 it had the highest per capita
crime rate of any city in the nation. This is not a coincidence. The
simple fact is, when law-abiding citizens are [unconstitutionally]
forbidden by. "government" from protecting themselves, they become easy
prey for those to whom a [legal defensive firearm] ban is just one more
law to break. The citizens of the District of Columbia have the same
Constitutional rights as the rest of us, and one of those rights is the
right to bear firearms. We shall not allow their right to protect
themselves and their property be trampled on any longer."
Even left-leaning pawn Republican In Name Only Senator Orrin Hatch of
Utah, Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee railed, "It is
time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves
and to defend their families against murderous predators. It is time to
tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment
of the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow
Americans in the rest of the country. The prohibition of [legal
defensive] firearms in the District of Columbia is as ineffective and
deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time we rectify this
wrong."
Why are your mere employees, the elected politicians, entitled to
expensive offensively-armed personal bodyguards, equipped with the
high-capacity fully-automatic assault weapons they've unconstitutionally
denied you, and you, their boss, their employer, their master, aren't?
Is your life, or that of your family's, any less valuable?
The era of terror has spawned a new "status symbol" in the nation's
capital: offensively-armed mercenary bodyguards.
If you don't have them, you're not considered important, say career
federal bureaucrats who find the post-September eleventh 2001 trend both
amusing and disturbing.
Even the low-profile director of the relatively small thirty-six
hundred-employee Office of Personnel Management now has a "protective"
detail.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton, moreover, is protected by a phalanx of
guards armed with MP-5 submachine-guns, a weapon favored by the
president's S. S. detail.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's "security" detail also is
heavily armed, which is ironic considering Mineta opposed arming pilots
after the September eleventh 2001 hijackings.
Health and Human Services Inspector General Janet Rehnquist, the daughter
of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, wasn't legally entitled to receive a
"government" firearm and "law enforcement" credentials but got them
anyway, an internal investigation conducted by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency concluded.
The report found as well that Vicki Shepard, deputy inspector general for
investigations who obtained the firearm and credentials for Rehnquist,
also had an unauthorized weapon.
Mark Everson, deputy director of the White House Office of Management and
Budget, suggested that HHS officials consider whether action should be
taken against Shepard.
Shepard told investigators she was unaware that she was not authorized to
carry a weapon.
Federal law makes it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm in a federal
facility, although there's a sly exception for "law enforcement"
officers.
Career paper-pushers say some agency heads, such as Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, are reassigning armed criminal agents
in their inspector general's offices to bodyguard duty in violation of
the Inspector General Act of 1978.
"The I. G. Act only authorized investigation and audit for fraud, waste
and abuse, not dignitary protection," said one "official."
"Those agents have no legal authority to protect anyone."
Other agency heads, such as Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Commerce
Secretary Don Evans, tap their bodyguards from their departments' offices
of "security."
FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh has a detail of deputy U.S. Marshals, who also
provide "protection" for the drug czar.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld uses agents from the Army Criminal
Investigative Division, which raises troubling questions about enlisted
military personnel doing civilian "law-enforcement" duties in the
"protection" of a mere civilian.
Career "officials" say the recent assignment of heavily-armed bodyguards
in many cases has more to do with "image enhancement" than "protection."
(I'm more important than you mere peons)
"Having a 'protective' detail is the new status symbol in town," an
Interior Department official who requested anonymity said. "You don't
look important unless you have one."
Said another "official," who's employed by the sinister new GEheime STAat
POlizei (homeland "security") Department: "It is a fact that a 'detail'
is very prestigious now in Washington."
Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James recently was
assigned a protective detail.
"She is taken care of twenty-four-seven," said OPM spokesman Scott Hatch,
who declined to elaborate
GEheime STAat POlizei (homeland "security") Secretary Tom Ridge is
expected to get a full Secret Service (SS) detail, like the president.
By going overboard on new "security" measures, top politicos are
unwittingly setting up a "police" state.
"We're going to have a huge 'police-state' infrastructure, one we
probably won't be able to get rid of even after al-Qaeda," admitted the
Interior "official."
Bureaucrats cite, for example, a provision in the recently signed GEheime
STAat POlizei (homeland "security") Act that gives broad new "policing"
powers to inspectors general.
Even the obscure National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or
NOAA, has started a wide-ranging "security" program.
The program included a proposal for so-called "space cops," armed with
offensive firearms, to monitor private operation and use of the nation's
satellites through NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service office.
Self-protection is the one use that our "government" doesn't view as
legitimate ...an attitude that's quite disturbing in the people who're
supposedly employed by the taxpaying sheep.
I can only wonder what they're up to, that they prefer law-abiding
unorganized Militia members around them to be unequipped to resist
illegal aggression.
The "Gun Control" [Extremist Victim Disarmament] Act of 1968 was the
camel's nose under the tent: Hitler's very own immoral laws blatantly
used, right out in the open, against you.
Extremist victim disarmament is racist, sexist, and always a precursor of
first, confiscation and next, genocide.
Extremist victim disarmament laws are insidious barbed hooks. Once placed
on the books, they never get pulled out!
The evil social fascist supporters of the 1996 Sarah Brady's Revenge Law
claim they've "prevented" over one hundred thousand predatory criminals
from obtaining a legal defensive firearm.
The very application for a permit is a felony, yet there've been
virtually no prosecutions for this, so that evil social fascists like
millionaire playboy Ted "my car has murdered more innocent unorganized
Militia members than your legal defensive firearm" Kennedy, who after
drunkenly drowning innocent young Mary Jo Kopeckne, arrogantly named his
dog "Splash," whose highly-paid personal mercenary bodyguard, Charles
Stein, was briefly detained, but not arrested, for carrying two
fully-automatic sub-machineguns, a pistol and over a hundred rounds of
ammunition into the Senate office building, can demand more coercive
unconstitutional laws, funded with your money, employing more nefarious
social fascist politicians because, obviously, this one won't work!
It wasn't until unconstitutional mala prohibita laws like the homicidal
"Gun-Free Schools Act," which insanely purports to make schools "safer"
by officially turning them into shooting galleries where predatory
criminals are guaranteed by law to enjoy a target-rich environment.
The so-called "assault"-style legal defensive weapons ban, another
capricious and arbitrary piece of excrement compiled by a gang of
ignorant political rabble, indiscriminately limited the number of
cartridges in a legal defensive weapon to ten, but in shootings of
mercenary proxy-guardian "police," most were killed by less than four
bullets. That's less than the smallest revolver will hold!
It's actually nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors; mind games played
against the ignorant voters to illegally usurp even more control over
their lives.
The evil social fascist elitists wish the frightened sheep to believe, by
cunningly referring to ordinary hunting arms as nefarious "assault"
weapons, that millions of Elmer Fudds armed with deadly machineguns will
surreptitiously crawl through their bedroom windows in the dead of night
and negligently murder them in their beds as they sleep, mistaking them
for Bambi.
A hideously confusing maze of unconstitutional regulation now exists
where it's very easy to have two precisely identical firearms - one
legal, and the other carrying a felony conviction to own because it was
manufactured one day later than the other.
That embraces the epitome of sheer idiocy, and is the very definition of
arbitrary and capricious legislation
It's prima fascia evidence of malicious unconstitutional infringement of
the Bill of Rights, and it's a mockery of justice to have such irrational
mala prohibita laws on the books.
David Kopel of the Independence Institute found in his 1994 paper
"Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition" that: "Less
than four percent of all homicides in the united States involve any type
of rifle. No more than point-eight percent of homicides are perpetrated
with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such
calibers are usually considered "assault"-style rifles.)"
A passage from a September fifteenth 1994 Washington Post editorial
rhapsodizing on what was accomplished by passage of this illicit "law"
bragged, "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. '
Assault' weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The
provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out be be,
as hoped, a stepping stone to broader [extremist victim disarmament]."
Doctor of Philosophy Arthur Robinson, writing in "Access to Energy," July
1994, said, "Most of America's [legal defensive] 'assault' [style] rifles
are in the attics, basements, and closets of patriotic Americans who
never fire them and to whom war against their own 'government' would be
an unthinkable nightmare.
The problem is that millions of such [legal defensive] weapons are now
being stored in the homes of ordinary Americans, especially in the
Western united States.
[Legal defensive] 'assault' [style] rifles have a military appearance and
contribute in a subtle, psychological way to growing resistance to
[tyrannical] 'government' oppression.
Most farmers, ranchers, and loggers who see their lives and families
entirely [illegally] destroyed by Babbitt and retainers will never fire a
shot.
The existence of these [legal defensive] weapons, however, makes
resistance, even legal resistance, more thinkable to these [innocent]
victims [of illegal 'government' aggression].
The [arrogant social fascist] bureaucrats and politicians do not fear
[illegally offensively-armed] criminals or armed political zealots so
much as they fear peaceful Americans who will probably never use their
[legal defensive] 'assault'[-style] rifles -but whose mental toughness
may be enhanced by possession of military[-appearing] weapons.
The [extremist victim disarmers] are not deterred by the facts about
[legal defensive firearms] and crime, because their primary fear is not
of criminals.
They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are
[illegally] destroying. In this [reasonable] fear and in their world,
they are on target."
Read the well-reasoned and practical "Invisible Resistance to Tyranny,"
by Jefferson Mack, available from Paladin Press.
Arrogant social fascists are exactly like the "Eddie Haskell" character
on the "Leave It To Beaver" show," who consistently ignorantly mouthed
off to his peers an a feeble attempt to coerce them into reverence while
simultaneously groveling, mealy-mouthed, kissing up to every adult who
crossed his path.
In classifying a certain category of firearms as "assault"-style weapons,
"government" simultaneously classified the remainder as non-assault
weapons.
Then, by unconstitutionally usurping the power to ban, that is, the power
to forbid, predatory "government" also usurped the power to permit.
The power to forbid goes hand in hand with the power to permit.
You can't forbid a portion of a whole without permitting the remainder.
By wresting the power for either without Constitutional prerogative,
predatory "government" has illegally transferred sovereignty from you and
me, the People, to itself and has reversed that for which the Founding
Fathers pledged their sacred honor, their fortunes, and their lives to
secure not only for themselves, but also for their progeny.
Ownership by permission rather than personal volition is the most
horrifying, the most debilitating, the most demeaning form of ownership.
Realize this also: that the most precious property you can own is not
life, is not freedom, it's arms when derived from the unalienable right
to keep and bear them.
In proscribing arms -the most - predatory "government" can proscribe the
least.
Your toilet paper, your forks and knives, your candlesticks, and your
matchbooks. All these are now subject to censure.
E-mail, fax, call, write and visit each of your elected servants again
and again, and demand your inalienable rights as a citizen: the long
overdue demise of the unconstitutional "assault"-style weapons ban, the
infamous Lautenberg amendment, and the civil war holdover, prohibition of
concealed carry.
Only when honest citizens legally possess the same means of justifiable
immediate self-protection as corrupt politicians now lavish only on
predatory criminals will we ever have the opportunity to meet Jefferson's
definition of how the Founders wanted the country: "When the 'government'
fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the 'government,'
that is Tyranny."