Comment

Comment by donp on January 4, 2013 at 3:58pm

M Mom, what do you designate as the "constitutional sheriff" and the constitutional sheriff legislation? 

Comment by donp on January 4, 2013 at 11:02am

What do you define as a "constitutional sheriff"? 

Comment by ATUM RA on January 4, 2013 at 8:13am

Midnightmom – “Any state that takes back the Sword, via control of their militia and, also passing the constitutional sheriff legislation, will have the necessary power to insure that the Purse and the Sword are held by the rightful sovereignty, the individual state and the individuals living there.”

Anti-Federalists – “these Anti-Federalists pointed out the consequences of allowing the defense forces of a free people to be placed under the control of the very people who would make it necessary, by their misconduct in office, for these defense forces to act in opposition to their rule.”

“. . . Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession: of what service would militia be to you when most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.”

“Will the oppressor let go of the oppressed?”

“Consequently they [Congress] are to make militia laws for this state. 3 Elliot 411.”

“It was well understood by the founding fathers who lived in Virginia that the proposed Constitution of 1789 would have the effect of taking the various state militias out of the hands of the respective states and placing them under federal control.”

“Even the Congressional mattoid majority can figure out that these militia organizations have a different ideology other than politics as usual, and thus will not train them on how to use military force in opposition to their rule.”

 

Me – By the passing of evermore un-constitutional laws via legislative fiat, the State and Fed are moving further away from the spirit of the organic Constitution. The Fed continually overrules the States’ with their statutes and the States’ put up little fight because they are addicted to the Federal Reserve Notes [the ‘IOU’ promises to pay by a bankrupt Federal government]; which is their only purse. If our government wanted Sovereignty to be in the rightful hands then they would not be passing laws to steal it from the ‘People’ every chance they get. The law of the land may express that the Sovereignty resides in “We the People”, but that is not the intent of the government. The militia would help insure that this is a government of the ‘People’, by the ‘People’ and for the ‘People’; so why would the government want to provide militias for the ‘People’ to take their power back and away from themselves [the tyrants in government]?

Comment by Midnightmom on January 3, 2013 at 7:33pm

The constitutional lawyer, Edwin Vieira, has written about Homeland Security, and that it begins at the local level. He has written that the sheriff’s office and the militia as defined in the Constitution represent constitutional Homeland Security, that is unique to a FREE State and the constitutional republic founded in these united stated. His website and books complement and extend the work we are doing here at TAC. One concept he covers refers to the power of the Purse and the Sword. Each state that takes back the power of constitutional money as defined in the constitution(s) will survive any economic problems from the fiat dollar and the over-extended federal government. Any state that takes back the Sword, via control of their militia and, also passing the constitutional sheriff legislation, will have the necessary power to insure that the Purse and the Sword are held by the rightful sovereignty, the individual state and the individuals living there.

Supporting these efforts for constitutional sheriffs is a step toward returning the power of the Sword and the Purse to each state.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/09/constitutional-sheriffs-...

Comment by ATUM RA on January 3, 2013 at 11:48am

There Ain't No Such Thing As A "Constitutional Militia"

The Congress shall have the power to . . . 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; -- Article 1, Section 8, Constitution of the United States

This quote from the Constitution should conclusively prove the foolishness of those militiamen who want to claim they are part of a "constitutional militia." Ask them for the piece of paper which shows that they have been organized, armed or under a code of military discipline directly derived from Congressional authority and they will draw a blank. If they claim to be a state militia, then ask them where is their appointment from the state governor giving them an authority to train their enlisted militiamen.

Again a blank. Which reflects reality. None of these so-called "constitutional militia" are any such thing. All they do is claim to be something they really are not.

I can hear it now, the yelps of protest to above assertion. "But we have such great quotes from the founding fathers about what the militia is and isn't!"

Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers. (George Mason - 3 Elliot 425.) Ignored by most every single would-be militia idiot who gets the above mentioned line correct, are the following lines:

But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If the paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of a future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. . . We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered. 3 Elliot 426.

George Mason was an Anti-Federalist, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Every single one of the founding fathers knew who the militia were. But some of them wanted a centralized government. What vain assurances a federalist like James Madison made in order to get the constitution ratified means nothing. Even more to the point, what the out-voted Anti-Federalists like Mason and Patrick Henry saw would come to pass under color of the Constitution is in large part irrelevant. The government courts do not take into account what the great men who saw the coming evil had to say in disparagement of the document which grants government functionaries their power. It is the way of the world for degenerate men in government to ignore any curtailment on their power.

No, the literal words of the Constitution itself show how these so-called Constitutional militias which sprang up, and now are dying under the glare of government abuse, are the illegitimate posturings of the foolish. There really ain't any such thing as a "Constitutional militia."

The collectivization and consolidation of the people under one central government by means of the spurious Constitution was foreseen by farsighted patriots who had recently rejected foreign rulers and would have no more kings appointed from among their ranks. These patriots brought up the inherent illegality of the way in which the proposed constitution professed to replace the Articles of Confederation. But in addition to pointing out the illegitimacy of the proceedings, these Anti-Federalists pointed out the consequences of allowing the defense forces of a free people to be placed under the control of the very people who would make it necessary, by their misconduct in office, for these defense forces to act in opposition to their rule. One of the greatest Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, used all the oratory he could summon to speak against allowing the people's militia to fall underneath the power of the federal government . The following quotes come from the Third Volume (of five total) of The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot Debates) which concerned the Virginia Ratifying Convention held in June of 1788.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. 3 Elliot 45.

My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants. It is urged by some gentlemen that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength -- an army and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? 3 Elliot 47-48.

O sir, we should have fine times indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you can defend yourselves, are gone, and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? . . . 3 Elliot 51.

. . . Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession: of what service would militia be to you when most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such a 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." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplines or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. . . . Will the oppressor let go of the oppressed? Can the annal of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go of the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of. 3 Elliot 51-52.

We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representatives -- Congress -- will not exercise their powers oppressively. That we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves, &c. Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny? They have been enslaved at the hands of their own people. If it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been every where else. I am still persuaded that the power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, &c., is dangerous. . . . Under the order of Congress, they shall suppress insurrections. Under the order of Congress, they shall be called to execute the laws. It will result, of course, that this is to be a government of force. Look at the part which speaks of excises, and you will recollect that those who are to collect excises and duties are to be aided by military force. They have the power to call them out, and to provide for arming, organizing, disciplining, them. Consequently they are to make militia laws for this state. 3 Elliot 411.

It was well understood by the founding fathers who lived in Virginia that the proposed Constitution of 1789 would have the effect of taking the various state militias out of the hands of the respective states and placing them under federal control. Patrick Henry was the governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War and had called out the Virginia militia several times during that struggle for independence and had set George Rodgers Clark on his raiding expedition outside the confines of Virginia. So Patrick Henry knew the uses of the militia and he hated the possible misuse of using military power for civil and political ends.

Every single one of the Federalists saw the implications of Patrick Henry's objections and none of them had an answer concerning how placing the state militias under federal control meant anything other than what the proposed Constitution said it meant. John Marshall, a delegate to that convention who would later be John Adams' Secretary of State (where he did everything in his power to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts) and Adams' Federalist "midnight judges" appointee to the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that "It requires a superintending power, in order to call forth the resources of all to protect all." 3 Elliot 421. This is the same rascal lawyer who gutted states rights in favor of federal power every time he had a chance while sitting on the bench as one of the Supremes, (See Ogden v. Gibbons), enhanced the power of the federal judiciary by giving itself a spurious power of judicial review (See Marbury v. Madison), stretched and twisted the "Congress has the power to make all laws which necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" Art. 1 Section 8 clause and gutted the 10th Amendment (See McCulloch v. Maryland). At the Virginia convention, like most appointee Supremes awaiting confirmation to this powerful post conferred by the Constitution, Marshall smarmed about how:

"the power of governing the militia was not invested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been. And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, but retained them, though not acknowledged in any part of it." 3 Elliot 421.

John Marshall was a professed 9th and 10th Amendment supporter before there were any such amendments, but he reverted to his true form after he had come to power via the Constitution. If no Constitution had been ratified, then Marshall would have had to settle for a place on the state court of Virginia, and thus never had a position of rulership through color of law over millions enslaved under a consolidated centralized government.

The Virginia Federalists answered the Anti-Federalists' concerns with the bland assertion that federal despotism couldn't happen in America. As such they doomed their state and their fellow Southern states to a war of aggression waged by that federal government 72 years later, with the militia powers of the states submerged in the involuntary servitude of conscription. If they had not gutted their Confederacy by rejecting the voluntarily-entered-into Articles of Confederation and ratifying the blood-encrusted Constitution, there never would have been a federal Leviathan -- which to feed the ends of power destroyed over 600,000 American lives and imposed the myth that the secession of the oppressed is immoral.

~~~~~-----~~~~~

SO WHY, in the founding of the militia movement over three years ago, did its founding leadership insist that they were "Constitutional militias" when there is no such thing, as such extra-legal private paramilitary organizations are by a reading of the Constitution prohibited? I shall attribute it to in large part moral cowardice, with a good deal of stupidity thrown in. They refused to face reality, which demanded that certain unpleasant facts be faced, met and matched. Their unwillingness to think explains their stupidity. Rather than speak plainly and warn the common people about the consequences of shielding criminal government, such as annihilation and the collapse of civilization following total civil warfare, altogether too many of us "militia generals" have preferred to sugar-coat the truth because we were scared to look like 'terrorists' or 'extremists.' Few, if any of us, have faced the fact that getting our rights back entails the absolute extermination of evil men who infringed on those rights motivated by nothing more than their personal greed for wealth and power. Since these evil men will not surrender themselves to justice voluntarily, it will become necessary to use force to bring them to justice.

The use of force entails violence. Violence implies killing. Patrick Henry's most famous quote should be updated to say: "Give me my liberty or I'll give you your death." And let this message stand for those who would protect criminals from justice.

The stupidity that accompanies moral cowardice can be best diagnosed as selective moral blindness brought about by fear. Listen up, 'Constitutional Militia' generals:

Supposedly these militias were founded in opposition to federal government abuses. With the restrictive gun laws passed in defiance of the 2d Amendment willfully passed by Congress, it passes belief to expect this very same rabble of politicians to arm popular militia organizations with modern weaponry sufficient to challenge government rule. 
Even the Congressional mattoid majority can figure out that these militia organizations have a different ideology other than politics as usual, and thus will not train them on how to use military force in opposition to their rule. As far as Congressional discipline is concerned, all that has come out of the halls of power has been "anti-terrorism" legislation which nervously targets the means for potential popular insurrection.

We have heard time after time calls for help over the Internet from 'Constitutional militia' generals who were arrested and jailed while the rest of the 'Constitutional militia' generals did nothing but b**** about government abuses, find excuses for doing nothing, or even gloat about how that particular poor whining bastard got arrested by the feds. Face it -- if given a chance to talk as opposed to taking action, most of us Internet warriors will choose to play it safe and say that we are opposed to violence because we formed a "Constitutional militia." Even Louis Freeh, Head Goon of the Federal Butchers Incorporated, recently admitted that these open public militiamen were no threat to the corporate regime calling itself the United States Government.

State government is no better. They won't recognize any legitimacy of these new militia groups by providing an officer corps to command these groups. Not that any such command is sought by the militia groups. It was but a foolish daydream to expect state politicians, no different a breed than their federal cousins, to deputize any group of private citizens which might curtail their power -- as they have openly threatened to do.

The reason the leadership of the militia groups said that they were "Constitutional militias" is because they did not want to admit to the true reasons they formed these militia groups -- not even to themselves. The more farsighted ones knew that fighting for their rights would lead to warfare when the government refused to honor its Constitutional commitments.

 

Let us instead be thankful that the people who had been survivalists for five, ten, twenty years never broke cover. 
Let us be thankful that the Christian Identity elements never broke cover. 
Let us be thankful that some of the White/Black Nationalists learned to keep their mouths shut and that they went underground. And let us pray that the rank-and-file membership who have left the misnomered 'Constitutional militia' movement have finally gone underground and no longer speak to their former gutless-&-clueless militia generals. They figured them out and remained underground in their natural cells and never joined the open militia movement. Now they bide their time, watching, waiting, and eventually acting.

At some point they saw the handwriting on the wall. They moved out of the big city. They will look on without a trace of pity when the cities burn or fall prey to biological warfare. They are not scared of the IRS because they don't have massive amounts of income to declare and they have learned to file modest returns which do not attract suspicion. They have driver's licenses and car liability insurance and they do not speed or run red lights and you will never see them in a courtroom. They are not registered to vote and if they do vote it is only against higher taxes. They politely say "yes-sir" and "no-sir" to politicians, lawyers, judges, government bureaucrats and police while at the same time determined that when the time comes that such filth and its spawn must and will be utterly exterminated for the sake of restoring civilization. They are not worried about welfare, government corruption, or the national debt because such are the impending signs of government collapse -- and they never did much care for the government. They don't intend to 'overthrow the gubbnmint' because it is doing such an excellent job of overthrowing itself. They understand that Timothy McVeigh was both a hero who got off his ass and did his best to avenge the government murders at Waco, but that he was also a fool who let cowards, weaklings and informers into his cell, thus allowing a murderous government to blow out the support columns, killing the vast majority of people at a targeted federal building. They are natural born survivors and they do not care one bit if the vast majority destroy themselves like lemmings or Gadarene swine running over the cliffs. After the collapse, they will destroy the last predators and life will go on, better than before, because they no longer have a burden of supporting those parasites, predators, and fools.

I sometimes wish I had kept my mouth shut and remained with them in anonymity.

If there ever was such a thing as a 'Constitutional militiaman' then the time to be one has long since passed. 
It is time to become a modern militiaman, and provide for your own survival and that of the people you love. You have no business becoming involved in 'saving' a decaying civilization from itself. Your battle ahead lies in determining what shall arise from the wreckage.

--Martin Lindstedt,

Managing Editor, Modern Militiaman