However, Judge Andrew Napolitano recently explained that so-called “emergency powers” are nothing but a myth.

Napolitano writes:

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”
— Ex Parte Milligan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1866.

Last week, President Donald Trump in one of his free-wheeling chats with the press offered to declare an emergency at the Texas/Mexico border. He suggested that such a declaration would give him more powers to arrest and use military force.

This reminded me of the media in New Jersey — after the Covid pandemic had passed — asking Gov. Phil Murphy when he would surrender his emergency powers that he claimed in March 2020, and he also claimed were not limited by the Constitution. His reply to the media was that he will surrender them when he surrenders them!

I am using the threat of President Trump and the recent example of Gov. Murphy in order to address the concept of emergency powers, but there is no hyperbole here. While the president has not yet declared an emergency, Gov. Murphy quite literally issued executive orders barring folks from doing what the Constitution guarantees them the right to do, and he imposed criminal penalties for violating his orders, and he had the folks who defied him arrested and prosecuted.

He claimed that somehow he can interfere with the exercise of basic human freedoms — going to church, going to work, shopping for food, operating a business, assembling in groups and traveling on government roads — because he declared a state of emergency.

If the government declares an emergency, can it thereby acquire the lawful power to interfere with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? In a word: NO.

Here is the backstory.

When the states formed the federal government in 1789, they did so pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution was written to establish and to limit the federal government. In 1791, just two years later, the Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights. The original understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it restrained only the federal government by articulating negative rights.

A negative right isn’t a grant of freedom; rather it restrains the government from interfering with the exercise of a preexisting freedom. Thus, the First Amendment does not grant the freedom of speech — because it comes from our humanity — but it does prohibit Congress from infringing upon it.

The Ninth Amendment — which today restrains the feds and the states — is the work of James Madison’s genius. Madison, who drafted the Constitution and later chaired the House of Representatives committee that wrote the Bill of Rights, wrestled along with his colleagues about the best way to protect unenumerated rights.

The big-government crowd in Congress did not want any enumerated rights to be expressed in writing. They argued that by listing a few, the unlisted rights would be subject to government assault.

The small-government crowd argued that by listing no rights as immune from government interference, the Constitution would invite the government to assault whatever rights it wished.

Madison’s solution to all this was to add a Bill of Rights and include the Ninth Amendment. That amendment recognizes that we all have pre-political, fundamental, natural rights — too numerous to enumerate — and prohibits all government from disparaging them.

During the War Between the States, Abraham Lincoln did more than disparage them. He ordered the military to arrest newspaper editors and even public officials in the North and confine them without trial or try them before military tribunals for disloyalty because of their public criticism of him. He claimed that “emergency” somehow gave him powers from some source other than the Constitution.

One of Lincoln’s critics, Lambdin P. Milligan, who argued in favor of secession from the Union and was convicted by a military tribunal of disloyalty and sentenced to death, sued for his freedom, and he won.

In a unanimous decision, cited hundreds of times, the Supreme Court rejected the concept that “emergency” somehow creates or increases government power. The court condemned “emergency” as “more pernicious” than any other stated assault on the Constitution. This condemnation is still the law of the land today.

Thus, no matter the unexpected events — war, invasion, floods, pandemic, fear, myth — individual natural rights, protected from government interference by the Ninth Amendment, trump the unconstitutional words of government officials and invalidate their efforts to enforce compliance. Lincoln’s rules, like Murphy’s orders and Trump’s threats, are constitutionally empty because they do not have the force of law since they directly contradict the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s most definitive interpretations of it.

When Trump became president and Murphy became the governor of New Jersey, they each took an oath to enforce the Constitution. Whatever blind spots or mental reservations they may have had, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and every public official, federal and state, is bound by it.

If government officials could declare an emergency and thereby be relieved of the obligation to defend the Constitution — and the rights it guarantees — then no liberty is safe.

Because our rights are natural and individual and because we did not all consent to their suspension, no government may morally or constitutionally suspend them, and we must resist all efforts to do so. Of course, there is a dark side to this. The government that has destroyed liberty and taken property has also immunized itself from financial liability for the consequences of its official misdeeds.

Yet, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, whenever any government destroys liberty and takes property, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post The Myth of Emergency Powers appeared first on The Washington Standard.

EFF has the story.

Across the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already begun increasing enforcement operations, including highly publicized raids. As immigrant communities, families, allies, and activists think about what can be done to shift policy and protect people, one thing is certain: similar to filming the police as they operate, you have the right to film ICE, as long as you are not obstructing official duties.

Filming ICE agents making an arrest or amassing in your town helps promote transparency and accountability for a system that often relies on intimidation and secrecy and obscures abuse and law-breaking.

While it is crucial for people to help aid in transparency and accountability, there are considerations and precautions you should take. For an in-depth guide by organizations on the frontlines of informing people who wish to record ICE’s interactions with the public, review these handy resources from the hard-working folks at WITNESS and NYCLU.

At EFF, here are our general guidelines when it comes to filming law enforcement, including ICE:

What to Know When Recording Law Enforcement

• You have the right to record law enforcement officers exercising their official duties in public.
• Stay calm and courteous.
• Do not interfere with law enforcement. If you are a bystander, stand at a safe distance from the scene that you are recording.
• You may take photos or record video and/or audio.
• Law enforcement cannot order you to move because you are recording, but they may order you to move for public safety reasons even if you are recording.
• Law enforcement may not search your cell phone or other device without a warrant based on probable cause from a judge, even if you are under arrest. Thus, you may refuse a request from an officer to review or delete what you recorded. You also may refuse to unlock your phone or provide your passcode.
• Despite reasonably exercising your First Amendment rights, law enforcement officers may illegally retaliate against you in a number of ways including with arrest, destruction of your device, and bodily harm. They may also try to retaliate by harming the person being arrested. We urge you to remain alert and mindful about this possibility.
• Consider the sensitive nature of recording in the context of an ICE arrest. The person being arrested or their loved ones may be concerned about exposing their immigration status, so think about obtaining consent or blurring out faces in any version you publish to focus on ICE’s conduct (while still retaining the original video).

Your First Amendment Right to Record Law Enforcement Officers Exercising Their Official Duties in Public

You have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement, which federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized and affirmed. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record law enforcement. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right. EFF has advocated for this right in many amicus briefs.

Federal appellate courts typically frame the right to record law enforcement as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. This right extends to private places, too, where the recorder has a legal right to be, such as in their own home. However, if the law enforcement officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you don’t have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited.

Special Considerations for Recording Audio

The right to record law enforcement unequivocally includes the right to take pictures and record video. There is an added legal wrinkle when recording audio—whether with or without video. Some law enforcement officers have argued that recording audio without their consent violates wiretap laws. Courts have generally rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that the Illinois wiretap statute violated the First Amendment as applied to audio recording on-duty police.

There are two kinds of wiretaps laws: those that require “all parties” to a conversation to consent to audio recording (12 states), and those that only require “one party” to consent (38 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal statute). Thus, if you’re in a one-party consent state, and you’re involved in an incident with law enforcement (that is, you’re a party to the conversation) and you want to record audio of that interaction, you are the one party consenting to the recording and you don’t also need the law enforcement officer’s consent. If you’re in an all-party consent state, and your cell phone or recording device is in plain view, your open audio recording puts the officer on notice and thus their consent might be implied.

Additionally, wiretap laws in both all-party consent states and one-party consent states typically only prohibit audio recording of private conversations—that is, when the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Law enforcement officers exercising their official duties, particularly in public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to law enforcement in a manner audible to passersby. Thus, if you’re a bystander, you may legally audio record an officer’s interaction with another person, regardless of whether you’re in a state with an all-party or one-party consent wiretap statute. However, you should take into consideration that ICE arrests may expose the immigration status of the person being arrested or their loved ones. As WITNESS puts it: “[I]t’s important to keep in mind the privacy and dignity of the person being targeted by law enforcement. They may not want to be recorded or have the video shared publicly. When possible, make eye contact or communicate with the person being detained to let them know that you are there to observe and document the cops’ behavior. Always respect their wishes if they ask you to stop filming.” You may also want to consider blurring faces to focus on ICE’s conduct if you publish the video online (while still retaining the original version)

Moreover, whether you may secretly record law enforcement (whether with photos, video or audio) is important to understand, given that officers may retaliate against individuals who openly record them. At least one federal appellate court, the First Circuit, has affirmed the First Amendment right to secretly audio record law enforcement performing their official duties in public. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit recently upheld Oregon’s law that generally bans secret recordings of in-person conversations without all participants’ consent, and only allows recordings of conversations where police officers are participants if “[t]he recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants in the conversation.” Unless you are within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island), it’s probably best to have your recording device in plain view of police officers.

Do Not Interfere With Law Enforcement

While the weight of legal authority provides that individuals have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement, courts have also stated one important caveat: you may not interfere with officers doing their jobs.

The Seventh Circuit, for example, said, “Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety.” The court further stated, “While an officer surely cannot issue a ‘move on’ order to a person because he is recording, the police may order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to public safety and order and other legitimate law enforcement needs.”

Transparency is Vital

While a large number of deportations is a constant in the U.S. regardless of who is president or which party is in power, the current administration appears to be intentionally making ICE visible in cities and carrying out flashy raids to sow fear within immigrant communities. Specifically, there are concerns that this administration is targeting people already under government supervision while awaiting their day in court. Bearing witness and documenting the presence and actions of ICE in your communities and neighborhoods is important. You have rights, and one of them is your First Amendment-protected right to film law enforcement officers, including ICE agents.

Just because you have the right, however, does not mean law enforcement will always acknowledge and uphold your right in that moment. Be safe and be alert. If you have reason to think your devices might be seized or you may run the risk of putting yourself under surveillance, make sure to check out our Surveillance Self-Defense guides and our field guide to identifying and understanding the surveillance tools law enforcement may employ.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post Yes, You Have The Right To Film ICE appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The Epoch Times reported that Sens. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Joe Manchin (I-W.VA) introduced a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to limit newly appointed Supreme Court justices to 18 years on the bench and “lead to an opening roughly every two years”. Remember, Constitutional amendments are required to be passed by a two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress (House and Senate) and ratified by three-quarters of the States, which would be 38 States.

The Epoch Times reported:

According to a summary provided by Welch, the amendment would not change the number of sitting justices, currently set at nine by law, and would establish a transition period to ensure vacancies occur at regular intervals.

“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is a commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” Welch said in a joint statement issued with Manchin on Dec. 7. “I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin, which will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”

During the transition period, 18-year terms will start every two years, without regard to when a sitting justice steps down. When a sitting justice retires, the incoming justice will complete what remains of the next upcoming 18-year term.

Manchin claims the current “lifetime appointment structure is broken” and “fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land.”

“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the court, allowing the president to appoint a new justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate,” he said.

Other measures are pending in Congress that would limit the tenure of Supreme Court justices.

So, how would the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices every two years stop “polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing”? It won’t. It will make those more frequent.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs a Senate subcommittee overseeing federal courts, introduced a bill that would limit justices’ tenure to 18 years. Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) filed a similar bill in the House.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced legislation that would force out justices after 18 years of regular active service, at which point they would assume senior status, a kind of semi-retirement for federal judges, and continue to draw a federal paycheck for life. Superannuated justices are already allowed to serve on lower courts by a 1937 law that allows justices to sit “by designation” on those courts.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took the opportunity during the summer to grandstand in opposition to “Supreme Court reform” proposals, which included term limits.

“They want to pack the court. They want … to undercut the conservative court,” Graham said during a July 28 interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

“They have no desire to make the court better. They’re just trying to make it more liberal.”

If a majority of Americans support this supposed “common sense reform”, the majority of Americans are ignorant of the Constitution for the united States of America.

In Article III, Section 1, the Constitution for the united States of America states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” This means judges, Supreme Court and inferior courts, only hold their office during good behavior. They do not hold their positions for a lifetime. Good behavior means following the Constitution in its original intent as indicated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

Let us review Art. III, §2:

Clause 1 lists the categories of cases federal judges are permitted to hear.

Now look at clause 2:  The FIRST SENTENCE lists two of the categories set forth in clause 1 (cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” & “those in which a State shall be Party”) and says that in ALL such cases, the supreme Court SHALL have original [trial] jurisdiction.

The SECOND SENTENCE says that in all the other cases set forth in clause 1, “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Constitution is clear!  So is The Federalist.  In No. 81, Hamilton sums it up:

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, “with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.” (15th para) [emphasis  in original]

See also, as to the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, No. 81 (13th para).

As to the “exceptions & regulations” respecting the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, see No. 81 (last 6 paras):  the exceptions & regulations merely address the mode of doing appeals.

When Supreme Court judges/justices operate outside of the authority of Article II of the Constitution for the united States of America, these judges are not engaging in “good behavior”.

Article I, Section 2, last paragraph states, “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3, paragraph six states, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Article II, Section 4 states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Since Supreme Court judges/justices and judges of all inferior courts are “civil officers of the united States”, these individuals may be removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Surely, violations of the Constitution would be considered a “high crime”. Federalist Paper no. 81 indicates federal judges may be impeached and removed for usurpation of power.

Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.

2. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause).  The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause).  The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means!  The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

3. The meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” at Art. II, Sec. 4, is far broader than one might at first glance think.  Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now, note well!  “Misdemeanor” has a broader meaning than “a lesser category of criminal offense”.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning is:  “Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows that a President, Vice-president, and all civil Officers and Judges of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.

So, using the Constitution, it has been proven that Supreme Court justices and judges do not have lifetime appointments, but only hold their post during good behavior. And, Congress has the authority to impeach (House function) and try (Senate function) all civil officers including the president and vice-president. Congress has shirked its impeachment duty, using impeachment politically to target opposition, not constitutionally to remove usurpers and those violating the Constitution. Even when impeachment is used constitutionally (only against three presidents), no one has ever been convicted. It was all a dog and pony show to distract the people.

In all honesty, all presidents could have and should have been impeached and convicted for violations against the Constitution, mismanagement, usurpation of power, and evil conduct. In truth, impeachment has been used as a “battering ram” in a political “show” to the American public to convince constituents “they are doing something”, knowing a conviction will not be forthcoming.

This proposal for a Constitutional amendment by Welch and Manchin is a lazy man’s attempt to indicate to the people “they are doing something” about Supreme Court justices that fail to follow the Constitution. In reality, this amendment would allow the placement of justices to the Supreme Court that would be sympathetic to the current administration’s policy, agenda, and cause. It would create more chaos than is already seen in government. It would be Senate confirmation dog and pony show hearings before the “rubber stamp of approval” is issued. It also would serve as an additional distraction for the people so Congress and the administration could hide their continued criminality and corruption.

The solution is not term limits for Supreme Court justices. The solution is holding these justices to their constitutional authority. When the justices stray outside their authority enumerated in Article III, Section 2, the appropriate action is impeachment, not an amendment to limit their terms. With a House of Representatives that operates unconstitutionally in their legislative authority and a Senate operating outside of State oversight, one cannot expect either chamber to hold justices accountable to the Constitution.

The American people are so ignorant of the Constitution and willing to shirk their duty to hold government accountable, they will rally behind this stupidity to be able to then complain more about what is going on instead of doing something about it. Without knowing it, the people already live under a Supreme Court black robe oligarchy directed by agenda, fascism, private wealthy individuals and the justices’ own sense of “constitutionality” – all with the approval of both chambers of Congress. They will continue to do so until they remedy their ignorance through knowledge, then seriously be diligent in holding government at all levels accountable.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post Manchin & Welch Propose Amendment To Limit Terms Of Supreme Court Justices appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Investigative journalist Alex Newman has more on this, which you need to share with your local sheriff.

Join Alex Newman in this episode of The Sentinel Report as we cover the news of the horrendous mockery of Christianity on display at the 2024 Olympics, the misinformation surrounding Donald Trump’s speech at Turning Point USA’s Believers’ Summit, and much more.

Additionally, Sheriff Richard Mack joins the program to emphasize the necessity of voting for a sheriff in your community that fights for and believes in the U.S. Constitution.

Pivoting to the topic of parental rights, Kelly Piacsek, the president of the Board of Education for the school district of Waukesha, WI., challenges parents to reassess their children’s education, asking themselves how involved they really are in raising their posterity.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post Constitutional Sheriffs CAN Protect Liberty In A Kamala Harris Presidency Or Any Other (Video) appeared first on The Washington Standard.

In 2021, the White House announced Executive Order (EO) 14019, Promoting Access to Voting.  It begins by addressing voting discrimination with barriers to polls, long lines, voter ID requirements, language barriers, and a host of other discriminatory inequities, and that it is the duty of all government levels to promote the right to vote and partner together to ensure access to voting is easy.

To correct this travesty, the EO provides that agencies will promote ways to provide information through public materials, websites, online forms, social media platforms, and direction on how to register to vote, request a vote-by-mail ballot, and cast a ballot.  In addition, it provides for distribution of voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot application forms, and “ways to facilitate seamless transition from (federal) agencies’ websites directly to State online systems.”  Access to multilingual voter registration and election information will also be made available, and to “Voter Registration for Eligible Individuals in Federal Custody”.  It also supersedes EO 12926—Implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Fortunately, EO 14019 is being challenged and is headed to the Supreme Court.

For corrections to these inequities, the EO stipulates that agencies will promote ways to provide information that directly engages with the public such as materials, websites, online forms, social media platforms, how to register to vote and request a vote-by-mail ballot, and how to cast a ballot.  In addition, it provides for distribution of voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot application forms, and “ways to facilitate seamless transition from agencies’ websites directly to State online systems.”  Also made available will be access to multilingual voter registration and election information, and to Voter Registration for Eligible Individuals in Federal Custody.  It also supersedes EO 12926—Implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 611 – Voting by aliens, states:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

1. the election is held partly for some other purpose
2. aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State

constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and

3. voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

However, it is this subsection that is interesting:

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);

(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age

of 16; and

(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such

subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

This is similar to all the other inane beliefs now, if you believe, feel, or think it, it is.

So, during the time that access to voting information and registration is provided, would advocates of this process also be inclined to imply and impress upon the individual that registering means they can vote?  How is citizenship status verified by these groups?  Certainly, the League of Women Voters doesn’t like the idea of asking.  What if an illegal alien was left with the impression that now in America, they believe they do have the right to vote, especially by the mere fact they are given the information and registration to do so?

Pretending for just one moment that is the case, the amount of mayhem this would cause in the next election, and trying to untangle who voted just because they “believed” they could, would create such a magnitude of chaos that determining the official results may become almost impossible.  Arizona has already found this to be a problem.

States have different laws requiring citizenship. Based on some state cases, using procedures that actually determine if a person is eligible to vote for federal candidates may be shot down. If not allowed, how is a state supposed to determine if someone is a U.S. citizen or not?

Hopefully, this issue will reach the Supreme Court before November, but in reality, it won’t stop the advocacy groups from engaging in this activity just as they have done before.

The post May Illegal Aliens Vote? appeared first on The Washington Standard.

In Concord, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the “shot heard round the world” rang out, which marked the very beginning of the American War for Independence. But, syndicated columnist Don Feder notes, that town recently “removed three historical markers, which had been in place since 1930, that commemorated the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 300 years earlier,” lest the signs offend woke sensitivities.

In the state of Michigan recently, we have seen Muslims in what has been called “Dearbornistan” chanting “Death to America.”

Meanwhile, we see people in high places of America who, it would seem, want to see the nation die.

Conservative critics would argue that one way of killing off America is by forcing woke policies until they bankrupt us spiritually, socially, militarily, culturally and so on.

Woke policies often use the acronym DEI for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. But isn’t Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson correct when he says that DEI should be more accurately called DIE? Because whatever things woke policies touch ultimately die.

President Biden hired Antony Blinken as secretary of state. Blinken hired Zakiya Carr Johnson, who does not have a high view of the founding principles of America, to put it nicely.

In a now-deleted post, Carr Johnson wrote, “I understand that we cannot have equity without dismantling structural racism, patriarchy and heterosexism.”

She also pens, “These are chinks in the armor of traditional leadership that refuse to reconcile with a colonizing past, or recognize that time has run out for experimentation and tweaking of a failed historic model.”

Carr Johnson’s role in the State Department? Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer.

What is she saying? America has a “colonizing past” and is a “failed historic model.” Gary Bauer of Our American Values responds to that remark: “I’d like to know what her preferred ‘model’ is.”

To this day, people risk their lives to come to America. Perhaps the DEI revisionists should go to the border and tell migrants to turn around, since we’re just clinging to “a failed historic model.”

But are we? The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect. But they got a lot of things right.

America’s founders showed the world a better way to promote lasting good in the world. You begin with the foundational truth that our rights come from God, not the state. And then, building on that clear structure, because of man’s inherent sinful nature, you divide power so that no one man or small group can seize all the power for themselves. As James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, summed up well: “All men having power ought to be distrusted.”

In my documentary on the Constitution (“We the People”) for Providence Forum, some of the guests from different backgrounds remarked how pleased they are to be Americans.

Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., told our viewers, “I’m very grateful, very blessed, and delighted to be an American, because there’s so much liberty still in this great land. Many problems, and I will not deny that we have those problems. But there is still opportunity in America. There is still hope in America. There is still prayer in America, and I continue to pray for America.”

The late Billy Falling, a pastor and author, said, “As a Native American, the Constitution means to me that I have a protection, I have a wall, I have something that covers me, and that is the rule of law.”

Father Leon Hutton, a priest based in Ventura, California, said, “As a Catholic, the Constitution has meant to us the opportunity to freely practice faith as we see it and to celebrate it and to share it with others and allow it to be part of the human discourse in the United States of America.”

Dennis Prager, the Jewish founder of PragerU, remarked, “Let me take the question of what America’s meant to the Jews and incorporated in that is the Constitution. This is the Judeo-Christian country. Christians rooted in [Judaism] founded the country; Jews knew this. Jews who came to America from Europe called it the Golden of Medina, the golden country, not money gold, but the prize place. Look, ‘God Bless America’ was written by a Jew. Jews were in love with this country and for good reason.”

There’s a famous aphorism that circulates around Washington, D.C.: “Personnel is policy.” The beliefs of the people working in powerful positions in various departments will eventually become the policy of those departments, no matter who occupies the top seat. It’s distressing to see enemies of America’s founding principles in so many high places. Too many of our public officials are woke. The rest of us need to be awakened before we lose the country.

Article posted with permission from Jerry Newcombe

The post Is America Really Based On ‘A Failed Historical Model’? appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Much is written about the interpretation of Article V and the language that either Congress proposes amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments.  This document states if two-thirds of state legislatures transmit applications favoring a convention Congress must call a convention, which then decides whether to propose amendments, and if so drafts them.

The Federalist Society discusses the differences between “plenary” and “aggregated” applications for a convention.  Plenary means the application is unlimited or consideration is given for any amendments.  Aggregated refers to combining applications with the same subject matter into one common language, or aggregating them together to make them consistent between states which leads to a plenary convention.  As the Federalist Society explains it, “all valid applications must be aggregated with all other valid applications to yield a plenary result (pg 53).”  In the case of a BBA, aggregating the numerous states resolutions for a balanced budget amendment would result in a plenary or open convention.

In another opinion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reflects that “states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments.  Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request.  The convention would then propose constitutional amendments.”

There are many other opinions and interpretations, too long to list here.  But it is clear that the Convention of States Action (COSA) is calling for a plenary convention, open to many amendment possibilities and not just limited to imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and scope and jurisdiction restraints on the federal government.

Looking specifically at opinions on the proposed BBA, there is consistent agreement that government budgetary issues are far too complex to limit it down to just a simple “balance the budget” theme.

SCR 115 states, “the total of all federal outlays made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote a report in 2019 about the BBA history, and discusses the extensive impact it would have on fiscal matters in the government.  As correctly pointed out during the SJRC meeting, the economic system is based on debt rather than assets, and this can be addressed without a convention.  That is just one economic aspect of the problem.  Not only is there debt, but as the report outlines there are tax, waiver, non-budgetary, off-budget, and expenditure limitation issues that could possibly be open to revision.  Previous attempts to balance the federal budget also exposed fiscal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as possible issues for revision.  Just defining the budget as needing to be balanced does not come close to all of the economic details that would be exposed for changes during a convention with this proposed amendment.

So far, 26 states have passed resolutions specific to calling for a BBA convention.  Heck, even Congress, as reviewed by the CRS report, has historically and has currently proposed legislation for a BBA.  Some of the language in both Idaho resolutions came from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Rather than read hundreds of opinions on this subject, perhaps it would be better to determine what the Convention of States Action (COSA) has to say.  Surprisingly, Mark Meckler, who leads COSA, opposes a BBA because it would “give the federal government power over the states”, whereas a convention of states could impose “fiscal restraints“.  He includes “restricting taxing and spending” and forcing the government to use “generally accepted accounting principles (2:59 mark)”.  This appears to lead to the same end, an open door to changing many fiscal matters.

Michael Farris, JD, LLM, Co-Founder of Convention of States, states a BBA is “one that COS supports” but a “BBA alone will not cure this problem”.  He goes on to cite the many fiscal and other issues that would have to be addressed in which the BBA is limited and also speaks to the aggregate issue of different state BBA resolutions.  He concludes that both resolutions, calling for a convention and BBA, should proceed post haste.

Further clarification is given by Mr. Meckler to the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees on October 22, 2019.  Along with explaining that term limits could be set on “federal officials”, he continues, “… the convention could propose a balanced budget amendment accompanied by limitations on Congress’ spending and taxation powers. It could propose limits on executive power, federal agencies, and impose real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (pg 3).”  As seen, it isn’t just about balancing revenue with spending.

While Mr. Meckler denies “Convention of States has a board member that has proposed a new constitution” in response to criticism regarding Robert P. George, it was announced in 2014 that the COS Project formed a “Prestigious Legal Board of Reference” which included Mr. George as a board member.  “The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement“.  This board crafted The Conservative Constitution.  On page 11 it summarizes information related to finance, taxing, and spending.  The actual Article I, Sections 9 and 10 can be found on pages 20-21 where more specific details are provided on fiscal policy and outlines how much “fiscal restraint” could, or would be applied.  Given this is a COS project it might be considered as a source for consideration of possible proposed amendments that might occur during a convention, which would dramatically alter fiscal policy as various opinions have warned.  Mr. George is listed as serving “as a legal advisor to the Project”. All of the proposed Articles in this Conservative Constitution dramatically reconstruct our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mr. George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the COSA plenary resolution template, it does include fiscal restraints as one of the “limited” subjects, or rather “to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed.”

As for SCR 114,  opinions are far more varied with multiple reasons as to why term limits are a bad idea, and why it is a good idea.  However, the most frightening aspect is just how far these term limits would go according to COSA. As Mr. Meckler stated, these term limits aren’t limited to just Congress, it also includes federal officials, Supreme Court justices, and federal judges. Once again, the People have failed to do their job in ousting officials who don’t adhere to the Constitution.

With all of the information made available by COSA, it should be clear that a broad restructuring of the Constitution is in play.  Presenting such a narrow scope of objectives doesn’t come close to how deep the intent is to vastly alter the foundation of the Republic.

The original convention that created our Constitution emerged with delegates from each state coming together, it was initiated by them to the Continental Congress and an Act was declared for them to meet.  Today, this isn’t coming from states, it is coming from a highly organized political campaign that is primarily funded by one individual.  The question has to be why, what is the motivation of one person to personally fund so much activity, not only to interfere in state elections, but to also pursue avenues that would potentially cause such profound changes in the Constitution.  Should it not be done as was the 1787 convention, brought forward by state leaders, whether by Governors or legislators?

The post Balanced Budget & Term Limit Resolutions appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Lots of guys talk tough, don’t they?  They watched at Charlton Heston raised that old musket above his head and declared, “From my cold, dead hands,” and they want to be just like him mouthing the words, but where are they when it comes time to investigate crimes, train, practice shooting and maneuvers, gain knowledge, encourage their brothers in the holy cause of freedom?  Sadly, many are content with simply having a weapon and going to the range now and then, but never banding with their neighbors in order to strengthen their resolve.

And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. -Ecclesiastes 4:12

As long as they agree we have the right to keep and bear arms, but the militia is never mentioned, they will pick us off one by one, which is the intent of red flag pretended laws.  However, when we learn that the more “cords” we have in the band of our merry men, the stronger we that we will become.

In an excellent piece recently written by Courageous Lion, he outlines those thirteen forgotten and ignored words in the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…

How about we take a close look at the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights.  And not just a cursory look, but rather an honest, critical, deeper look.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It does not say “A well regulated Standing Army being necessary to the security of a tyrannical state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall always be infringed.”

Well regulated , meaning to run smooth, be disciplined , well supplied. Militia meaning the body of people consisting of lawful citizens in a free state of existence. Security , meaning to keep safe . Necessary meaning needed , essential Free state, meaning the collective of states, the whole nation. The right , meaning those essential liberties that all people have regardless of government. The people, the lawful citizens in a free state of existence To keep, meaning to own and posses And bear, meaning to carry on or about ones person either open or concealed.
Arms , meaning weapons Shall not, meaning must not, will not be infringed, meaning restricted , retarded , or suppressed in any way whatsoever.

Therefore, a well regulated, smooth running ,well supplied, disciplined Militia being necessary, essential, needed, for the security, safety, of a free state, the whole nation, for national security. The right, liberties, of the people, free and lawful citizens, to keep and bear arms, shall not, must not , will not be infringed, restricted suppressed.

Now if you suppress, restrict or infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people to keep, own, and bear arms, open or concealed you are compromising national security. The crime of jeopardizing national security is treason.

Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the “true palladium of liberty.” In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/48–1826) described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.” Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.

This from George Mason the, “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.”

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans or Prussians by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, [Constitution, Bill of Rights] the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” -Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

So why in the words of the “Father of the Bill of Rights” do we have a militia and bear arms? • We bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government AND • To protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations; • Mason makes sure we know WHO the militia is. This is contrary to what most politicians profess.

This from Noah Webster: “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” -‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787

So why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster? • To prevent rule by a standing army; • To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws; • To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive; • The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress. (And today the army appears to be controlled by the so called Commander in Chief. When was the last time we had a war declared by Congress? C.L.)

A short statement from Richard Henry Lee: “[W]hereas, 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…” -Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

So, why are our politicians and media mocking bird talking heads bent on disseminating misleading information and lies?  Perhaps they repeat the lies because they’re intent on disarming the people? Because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is NOT one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked, depraved people who want to hurt you. You will NEVER feel safe from these people. They will not cease to exist just because YOU are not allowed to legally own a gun. They do not care about laws and will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is this: “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”

If the answer to that question is “No”, the gun control debate is over.

Please do understand, the US Constitution does not give us any rights, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. Rather, it affirms rights that already existed, espoused in the “Bill of Rights”, in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which existed outside of any Constitution, is protected from infringement. The word NECESSARY is used in one place in the Bill of Rights and only in one place. Those first 13 words which were eviscerated in 1902-1903 with the “Dick Act” and following legislation that pretty much converted the voluntary state militias into a part of the federal army known as the National Guard. Those 13 words may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working to get them back into effect.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. —Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States

“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4th, 1783

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

I believe the US Constitution makes clear the prohibition against a standing army. If you look at Article 1 Section 8 you will find this:

To declare War,(this is NOT the Presidents jurisdiction! President states he can act defensive only and then Congress steps in)  grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which could help keep us OUT of wars!), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note the time frame for the appropriation of funds for an Army. TWO YEARS. And of course if we were at war, they could extend it another two years after the first two years were up. Note the continual use of the Militia. The VOLUNTARY militia would have soldiers for an ARMY called out of it to defend the nation in case of invasion or insurrection.

If a state started a voluntary militia patterned after the original intent, would you join? If our country was invaded would you be willing to arm up and help defend your state and the nation? I suspect that the ranks would be over run with volunteers.

Realize this…standing armies, after all, do not always only practice defense. And don’t give me the line, “Our military would never turn on the people” b.s. because if you are a student of history, every time a country turns tyrannical the military is used on the people. As a matter of fact the Founding Fathers fought THEIR military at Concord Green because it wasn’t the United States yet!

Once established, a government’s bureaucrats and leaders as well as the military and even laymen all face a different set of incentives. Those with a job related to the military have an incentive to keep their job. My late father was a employee of Rockwell International which is part of the military industrial complex. Talking to him about the subject of ending standing armies was futile.  In a lot of cases, they probably would love to see their power expanded and their pay and benefits increased. Their support for war then, is the ideal way for achieving their goals. Most likely incentives like this could convert a champion of peace into a war-loving bureaucrat. It’s a lot easier to rationalize a war if your job depends on it.

The Militia Act of 1903, known as “the Dick Act” named after it’s writer, created the National Guard out of the Organized Militia and created the Reserve Militia, to consist of males 17-45, those eligible for the draft. On the way to doing totally away with the organized militia.  This removed more control of the Militia from the States but provided additional funding for training, equipping, and manning the force. It was the National Defense Act of 1916 that fully modernized the National Guard, provided Federal funding for training, drills, annual training, and equipping. It did, however, stipulate that in return, the War Department and the Army gained far more control over the Militia; for example, the Army was now able to dictate what types of units would be raised in each State. The Act also removed the issue of Militia serving outside the United States by stating that when called into Federal service, the National Guard would be considered Federal troops. So can we quit calling the National Guard the militia?

From then on, the National Guard has served with distinction in all the major conflicts of the United States. Oh, they were just used for “major conflicts”. Another way of saying UNDECLARED WAR. So what was originally supposed to be a voluntary force garnered from the organized militias of the several states in a declared war or national emergency has been morphed into a “division” of the Standing army.

Need I say any more about standing armies? Of which we have in force and existence today rampaging all over the world involved in conflicts that are none of our business? Oh wait, they are involved in “conflicts” which in most cases are the people running our government’s way of doing business.  Sort of like a bully taking the lunch money away from a smaller kid in a public school only on a far greater scale. We should be proud.

Seriously, and I repeat… those first 13 words of the second amendment may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working diligently to get them back into effect.

The founding fathers understood clearly what the word NECESSARY meant as well as the word SECURITY. And if you think about it the carrying of arms is NECESSARY FOR SECURITY to exist. Just recently we saw how someone taking the word NECESSARY to heart was willing to supply SECURITY for the people in his vicinity when a mass shooter began a rampage. Now imagine THOUSAND, no MILLIONS of citizens who have taken the step to volunteer into state militias in all 50 states and are carrying arms on or about their person to supply the SECURITY NECESSARY for a free state for those that are in their immediate vicinity.

The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to live under the security of a free state of existence and thus to keep and bear arms —and yet it is not a requirement to be a member. The word VOLUNTARY comes into play. Obviously all living and breathing people have a right to their lives and thus a corresponding right to defend that life by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.

For anyone, any officer of the court, any law enforcement, any senator, any congressman, any president to make an effort to disarm and take away the people’s right to defend themselves, their county, their state, their country is tantamount to treason and they place themselves in a state of war against those that they become an aggressor against. After all, all law is enforced through the barrel of a gun.

If we were to get back to voluntary militias a lot of the empire building that the behind the scenes rulers of the United States engage in would grind to a stop. We would have state militias made up of men and women between the ages of 17 and 45. There would be incentives to be in the militia such as are now with military members like militia member discounts at stores. Help with loans, help with arming members for instance. Those who are not actual members could offer voluntary assistance in helping train and arm those who are unable to arm themselves. At my age I could no longer volunteer to be a member, but I could assist in training and arming younger militia members. I believe that many of our country men would join a volunteer militia today to get the training and to be able to stand in the gap whenever they are out and about in society. Can you imagine millions of trained militia members in our society being everywhere at all times and what kind of deterrent it would be against any kind of armed crime that may happen?

What I would love to see is a state governor to do some research and reinstate a REAL voluntary state militia patterned after the Founders version, which is patterned after the many years old Swiss tradition. Not some group like the Texas Guard or the Florida Guard which is state only sponsored, but not really trained in military response. They are not armed and basically act like a force to help the actual standing army version, “National Guard” in case of state emergencies. The first governor to bring back  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state  would become a legend and many other governors, mostly “red state” governors would most likely follow suit. And then we will have back in force and effect…A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

You can expect an outcry of citizens in “blue” states if their governors don’t follow suite with a national effort to re-establish the state militias.

Oh, and on the COUNTY level, I don’t want to forget that the SHERIFF, who is the highest elected law officer of the county, can form a POSSE which is actually the county level example of the militia.

I end this with this quote from John Locke, one of the men the founders of our system of justice read:
“He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power  does thereby put himself into a state of war with him, it  being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life; for I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me, too, when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave.  to be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.” ~ John Locke – Two Treatises Of Government

Ask yourself…are we not being placed in a state of war with all of the thousands of violations and infringements on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? I think you know the answer. We need to change that and get those first 13 words back into force and effect. Let me know what you think…

I am adding this section, due to a couple of statements that were made recently on other sites where this was posted. One detractor on Fakebook said my view was “demented” because what would happen if all we had were militia and we were invaded by say, China? My question to him, which he ignored was…where do the tank operators, drone operators, jet pilots, gun boat pilots come from? Do they pop in from another dimension and fill the positions or do they come from the CIVILIAN population? Since the civilian population would be the correct answer, then why couldn’t militia members be trained to run a tank? Or an drone? Or fly a jet? Obviously, the answer is, well of course they could be. And he never realized that Afghanistan didn’t have a standing army. They had MILITIAS. And what was the end result THERE? They ended up with a better armed MILITIA than any of the 50 states have. Since there are NONE. The following lists are what was left behind valued in BILLIONS of “dollars” all paid out to the military industrial complex.

Imagine, if you will, all of this equipment in the hands of a well trained and armed militias in all of the 50 states…And the BILLIONS of “dollars” that wouldn’t have been lost.

You see, the major DIFFERENCE would be that the militia would be DEFENDING the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii. They wouldn’t be running around the world and pretending to be defending “our freedom” in Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan or any other place that we shouldn’t be and the military industrial complex wouldn’t need to keep replenishing the weapons they build because the stock piles keep getting used on while blowing up aspirin factories and wedding parties in a far away distant land full of people who have NEVER harmed us in any way. Reason, logic and common sense dictate that we would be very well protected with a MILITIA where with a standing military making enemies all over the place and then wide open borders that allow anyone and everyone to come here…we are going to be reaping some nasty results. ESPECIALLY if we don’t get the militias back in force and effect. Mark my words…C.L. )

The following is a link to a fantastic documentary by Kris Anne Hall NONCOMPLIANT and NONCOMPLIANT 2 THE SHERIFF via the one below which you can watch the complete video by purchasing it. There is a discount code with it and I am in no way a recipient of any compensation. I just feel this information is TOO VALUEABLE to not pass on…

Non Compliant 2 The Sheriff

I feel that this article needs to be linked to by Naomi Wolf of how her way of thinking was changed by figuring out the TRUTH!

Rethinking the Second Amendment Can We Indeed Have Peace and Freedom Without Guns?

She mentions…. “one cheap beer or one fentanyl hit” where as I say could it possibly be SSRI Meds?

Here is what Naomi figured out;

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” [https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992]

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So you see, it really isn’t that hard to figure out! C.L.

I ran across this documentary about the Swiss culture and their form of defense which is the MILITIA. I feel it was well done, but the conclusion by Johnny Harris that the militia was the REASON to have firearms makes no sense. You can’t even think about having a militia WITHOUT the firearms in the first place. The majority of what he does in this documentary is fine when it comes to Switzerland. But like I said…YOU CAN’T HAVE A MILITIA without having the RIGHT to the ARMS in the first place!!! Johnny also showcases his ignorance of the “gun culture” in the USA so I’m going to be looking for a part 2 where he does a documentary about the USA. If that happens I wonder just how much of his thinking may change. ~C.L.

This video by Colion Noir explains where Johnny Harris is way off. I give Colion the floor…

ANOTHER REASON WE NEED THESE 13 WORDS BACK IN FORCE AND EFFECT!! QUICKLY!

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post 13 Forgotten & Ignored Words In The Second Amendment That You Need To Embrace & Live appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. -Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. -Article 1, Section 10 US Constitution

Mass immigration, which is what we are witnessing today and for which Texas has stood up so far against the federal government accomplices of this crime, is an invasion.  We have been watching this take place for more than a decade on our southern border.

Former CBS Healthwatch reporter Jon Rappaport wrote on the lawful response that Texas has finally given to the invasion.

The Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 1, Section 10: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Actual invasion has occurred. Imminent danger is all around us.

The invaders affect all states, not just the border states. The invaders travel to every state in the nation.

As proof of invasion, I could cite criminal Mexican cartel members entering the US; also sex traffickers and their victims; and convicted violent criminals from around the world coming here.

But, for the sixth time now, I’m going to focus on just one factor: fentanyl smuggled into the country. Fentanyl, the deadly street drug that keeps killing Americans—

Will ANYBODY in the federal government respond sanely and immediately and decisively?

No? Then the response (self-defense) is left to the states.

Fentanyl is an incredibly lethal drug.

Two milligrams is a deadly dose.

Now follow the math—

Insightcrime.org, November 21, 2023:

Fentanyl seizures along the US-Mexico border have hit record highs, suggesting that, despite a supposed ban on production of the deadly synthetic opioid in parts of Mexico, a multitude of criminal groups are keeping production apace.

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents seized 12,119 kilograms (26,718 pounds) of illicit fentanyl along the country’s southwest border with Mexico in the 2023 fiscal year, which runs from October to September. This marked a nearly 90% increase from the 6,397 kilograms (14,104 pounds) officials seized in the previous fiscal year.

Let’s call the seizure an even 12,000 kilograms.

Remember, this is only the seizure total for one year.

12,000 kilograms equal 12 billion milligrams. (There are a million milligrams in a kilogram.)

With a lethal dose of fentanyl pegged at 2 milligrams, we’re talking about enough fentanyl to kill 6 billion people.

Again, that’s only fentanyl seized along the southern border during one year.

If we add in the fentanyl seized in the prior year, 2022, there is easily enough to kill every person on Earth.

And of course, no one knows how much fentanyl has slipped into the US through the border and has never been found.

The standard law-enforcement assessment is: however much we’ve seized, we assume much more has gotten through unnoticed.

6 billion deaths.

6 BILLION.

Would you call that a problem?

An emergency?

A reason for the federal government to stand up and start shouting and actually DO something?

Do you think this rates some serious attention? AS IN: SHUTTING DOWN THE BORDER WITH 50,000 TROOPS?

Or would you say, “Look, I realize this is a tough situation, but the HUMANITARIAN flow of immigrants into the United States MUST remain our highest priority”?

That happens to be the irreversible priority of this federal administration.

You can rank that priority anywhere on a scale from ignorant to psychotic to genocidal. It IS genocidal.

The main reason people turn away from GENOCIDAL is the reaction: If it’s this horrible it couldn’t be true.

Which gets us nowhere.

Is all this sinking in yet?

THERE’S your proof of an INVASION at the southern border.

If that isn’t an invasion, nothing is.

If that alone isn’t a reason for every state Governor to support Texas AND shut down the border, there is no reason.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post The Constitution Guarantees Texas (Or Any State) Federal Protection From Invasion & The Right To Defend Against Invasion appeared first on The Washington Standard.

For individuals alarmed by the U.S. Census Bureau’s efforts to collect and track private information about the citizenry, their home life and personal habits, The Rutherford Institute has made its updated “Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey” guidelines available at www.rutherford.org. The Institute has also provided a form letter of complaint for lodging objections to the ACS with the Census Bureau.

“In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on race or religion, the potential for abuse is grave,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. The American Community Survey qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.”

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a highly invasive, ongoing monthly survey issued by the U.S. Census Bureau to collect detailed housing and socioeconomic data from about 3.5 million households each year. The ACS requires recipients to provide the government with extensive and sensitive information about each and every person in their household, including their work schedules, their physical disabilities and limitations, the number of automobiles kept at the residence, and their access to phone-service and the internet. The information collected by the ACS is not anonymous: the survey is to contain the name, age, sex, race, and home address of each person at the residence, along with the phone number of the person who fills out the form. There are so many questions on the ACS that it is estimated the average household will have to take 40 minutes to answer the questions. When people do not respond online or by mail, the Census Bureau repeatedly sends field representatives to their homes at unannounced times to harass and interview them until they answer the survey. People have reported that field representatives remained outside their houses for hours while waiting for them to arrive home or come out, have walked around their homes, and have talked to minor children when parents were away. The questions on the ACS are so invasive that many initially think the survey is a phishing scam to steal their personal information. Institute attorneys warn that the data collected and amassed by the Census Bureau through the ACS would be a goldmine for criminals.

• Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey (2023)
• Form letter of complaint for lodging objections to the ACS
• TRI’s public comment in opposition to the proposed additions in the ACS

Article posted with permission from John Whitehead

The post Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey (2023) appeared first on The Washington Standard.