A Case For the Second American Revolution

by: Michael R. Boldt

I believe we are facing the 2nd American Revolution. The federal government has become completely corrupt and I see no hope for it. Reasoning with our federal representatives and senators is impossible. We have not had a budget in four years, taxation and spending is out of control, we are now forced to buy heath insurance at considerable cost, the IRS now makes health insurance determinations, ATF is or was distributing weapons to foreign nationals (Fast and Furious) yet, “We the People” are facing harsh gun controls and confiscation.

 

The Department of Homeland Security classifies constitutionalists and veterans as potential domestic terrorists. The federal government is now stating they have the power to kill citizens on US soil with Predator Drones when they, without regard for the United States Constitution, say it is appropriate. US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets – FoxNews,  Judson Berger, 02/11/2013. The federal government no longer follows the United States Constitution and has become band of lawbreakers. Washington D.C. has become our Founding Father’s worst nightmares, a tyrannical government.

 

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

The United States has been divided in half, the Left and the Right. Progressivism has been incrementally destroying this country over the last 100 years. In order for Progressives to gain control they had to mitigate the Founding Fathers, The Federalist (Federalist Papers), the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution. Through the public education system Progressives have created the “uninformed voter”.

 

They are not intellectually capable of reading and understanding our founding documents and are easily led by their masters. I will go further and state they willingly follow their masters instructions and parrot everything they say. It was critical that Progressives vilify, disarm and replace the Militia with an organization that would support their cause. Disarmament of the Militia is not their end goal. The people must also be disarmed so Progressives can complete their assent to absolute power.

 

The United States Constitution states, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union [federal law], suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [foreign armies]” – Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Congress was “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”, Article 1,Section 8, Clause 16. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1.

 

This was a problem for the Progressives because the states were tasked with training the militia, arms provided by the federal government, and they provided the officers and men which were commanded by the President. The state militias would be loyal to their respective governments. This was a “check and balance” the Progressives could not ignore. Militia would be so numerous that a tyrannical federal government couldn’t raise a standing army large enough to suppress the state militias.

 

To make things worse for the Progressives the militia was divided into two groups ensuring the states would always have militia available on state soil. If that wasn’t bad enough for the Progressives, militia that remained in the states provided their own arms and supplies. It is reasonable to assume there was no cost to the state for maintaining any of its militia.

 

Progressives had to take action with the following steps: nationalize current state militias so they are under control of the United States military (1903), replace the state militias with an organization they could control (1909), vilify the so called “unregulated militia” in the minds of the American people (work in progress), reject enumerated powers granted by the United States Constitution with respect to the true militia (done) and, disarm all American citizens (proposed date unknown). I submit the Federal Bureau of Investigation has replaced the militia and there has been tension between the two groups ever since. I submit the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a Progressive organization.

 

A Brief History of the FBI, in their own words. “Origins (1908-1910) The FBI originated from a force of special agents created in 1908 by Attorney General Charles Bonaparte during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The two men first met when they both spoke at a meeting of the Baltimore Civil Service Reform Association. Roosevelt, then Civil Service commissioner, boasted of his reforms in federal law enforcement. It was 1892, a time when law enforcement was often political rather than professional. Roosevelt spoke with pride of his insistence that Border Patrol applicants pass marksmanship tests, with the most accurate getting the jobs. Following Roosevelt on the program, Bonaparte countered, tongue in cheek, that target shooting was not the way to get the best men. “Roosevelt should have had the men shoot at each other and given the jobs to the survivors.”

 

Roosevelt and Bonaparte both were “Progressives.” They shared the conviction that efficiency and expertise, not political connections, should determine who could best serve in government. Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in 1901; four years later, he appointed Bonaparte to be attorney general. In 1908, Bonaparte applied that Progressive philosophy to the Department of Justice by creating a corps of special agents. It had neither a name nor an officially designated leader other than the attorney general. Yet, these former detectives and Secret Service men were the forerunners of the FBI.

 

Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on “federalism:” a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities. However, by the 20th century, easier transportation and communications had created a climate of opinion favorable to the federal government establishing a strong investigative tradition.

 

 

The impulse among the American people toward a responsive federal government, coupled with an idealistic, reformist spirit, characterized what is known as the Progressive Era, from approximately 1900 to 1918. The Progressive generation believed that government intervention was necessary to produce justice in an industrial society. Moreover, it looked to “experts” in all phases of industry and government to produce that just society.

 

President Roosevelt personified Progressivism at the national level. A federal investigative force consisting of well-disciplined experts and designed to fight corruption and crime fit Roosevelt’s Progressive scheme of government. Attorney General Bonaparte shared his president’s Progressive philosophy. However, the Department of Justice under Bonaparte had no investigators of its own except for a few special agents who carried out specific assignments for the attorney general, and a force of examiners (trained as accountants) who reviewed the financial transactions of the federal courts. Since its beginning in 1870, the Department of Justice used funds appropriated to investigate federal crimes to hire private detectives first and later investigators from other federal agencies. (Federal crimes are those that were considered interstate or occurred on federal government reservations.)

 

Notice I did not call the FBI Progressive. THEY called themselves “Progressive” and were created during the Progressive Era. I was merely reading and thinking about what THEY said.

 

It must be understood that the Progressive Era never really ended. In order to advance their goal of assent to absolute power they need to brainwash the general public and news media, thereby creating Stalin’s “useful idiots”. Their method of brainwashing has been active ever since the start of the Progressive Era and possibly earlier. Tell a lie long enough and people will eventually believe it because of ignorance and apathy. The same arguments used by the Progressives back then are the same arguments used by Progressives today. Nothing has changed. Unfortunately, most of the Right has been influenced by many decades of brainwashing. We have become apologetic for exercising our natural rights and we incrementally give into the progressives. What is compromise if Progressives continue to win incrementally? We’ve had over 100 years of “compromising” with the Progressives. Look where it has led our nation today.

 

Small minded, insignificant, little men flock to the intellectual giants of the Right begging, “Teach me master”. Not realizing the intellectual giants on the Right are promoting the work of the progressives (they chuckle with joy). Namely, discredit and vilify the Founding Fathers among which is Alexander Hamilton. Et tu, Brute? Later in this paper I will present an example of present day brainwashing used by a high ranking member of the Department of Justice.

 

It is interesting to note, Karl Marx wrote to President Lincoln in 1864, “Sir, We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority.” – The Constitution in Exile, page 74, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. The Progressive Era from one source is dated from the1890s to the 1920s. If this is correct, Karl Marx corresponded with President Lincoln 26 years before the start of the Progressive Era. President Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of 650,000 people over states rights. During Obama’s second term inauguration President Lincoln’s Bible was used for the oath. Question, is that a message to America? Another question, why do progressives like President Lincoln so much?

 

Remember, the goal of the Progressives is to disarm the citizens of every state. Only active military, contractors, politicians, their body guards and law enforcement officers will be allowed to use or own firearms. This is their goal and they will not stop until the task is completed. Incrementally if necessary but they will not stop. The “tares” are standing tall and they are easy to spot. Sen. Feinstein: “We can’t have a totally armed society”. Sheriff Richard Mack said, this is our last chance for a peaceful solution. The time for SCOTUS has passed. There is no time left. We’re either going “right” or “left”. His sentiments are echoed by millions across the United States.

 

Every time our country stands in the path of danger, an instinct seems to summon her finest first — those who truly understand her.

 

When freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril, it’s always the patriots who first hear the call.

 

When loss of liberty is looming, as it is now, the siren sounds first in the hearts of freedom’s vanguard. The smoke in the air of our Concord bridges and Pearl Harbors is always smelled first by the farmers, who come from their simple homes to find the fire, and fight, because they know that sacred stuff resides in that wooden stock and blued steel — something that gives the most common man the most uncommon of freedoms.

 

When ordinary hands can possess such an extraordinary instrument, that symbolizes the full measure of human dignity and liberty. That’s why those five words issue an irresistible call to us all, and we muster. So — so, as, ah, we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed — and especially for you, Mister Gore [Senator Feinstein]: From my cold dead hands!” – Charlton Heston

 

Warning to Progressives, don’t step on the rattle snake. When the rattle snake is threatened (having an uncertain chance of continued survival) he strikes and with intent!

 

My concern is no longer about the survival of people in the federal government but, I am deeply concerned about the state of Michigan. Should the unthinkable, 2nd American Revolution occur, how will the people and government of Michigan survive? Will Michigan tear it’s self apart or will the people of Michigan and the government stand together and survive? My hope is that we consider the unthinkable and plan accordingly. There is no reason the state of Michigan, people and government, cannot ride out the coming storm in some sense of safety. This will require changing the way we think.

 

We can turn to the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution for advice and answers. The state of Michigan can be the example of promoting and living the Rule of Law. We can choose to “support and defend” the United States Constitution, as well as, the state of Michigan.

 

It was clear the United States Constitution would not be ratified without a Bill of Rights. Since James Madison penned the Constitution, later became the 4th President of the United States, and was highly respected, it was agreed he would provide a Bill of Rights. That agreement allowed for ratification of the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Those essays explained operation of the new federal government, addressed arguments of the day against ratification and rights/powers of the people and states. What we now understand to be The Federalist or Federalist Papers are the original essays in a bound form. “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says members of Congress need to get themselves a copy of the Federalist Papers – and make sure they read it.” – The Huffington Post, Henry C. Jackson, 01/24/11 The Federalist is admissible in SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

 

The Founding Fathers were not fond of standing armies because they are used to support usurpations by those in power. The arguments against ratification of the Constitution were often absurd. Clearly, the Constitution does allow for a standing army. Mr. Hamilton illustrates that should the Confederacy be dissolved, several standing armies would rise. The problem isn’t that we have a standing army. The concern is the size of that military force. He also uses Great Britain as the example of how we might view our future security if the states remain united.

 

“The institutions chiefly alluded to are standing armies and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors.

 

They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchyIt is of the nature of war to increase the executive, at the expense of the legislative authority.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 8, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States.

 

“The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. It is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.”

 

“If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe –our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.”

 

“This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 8, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States.

 

Alexander Hamilton explains to us the national security Great Britain enjoys is due to it’s geographic location, powerful marine, limited standing army and sizable militia. That national security exists “in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption.” I am making the case that “We the People” are not as secure in our liberty as the people of Great Britain were at that period in history. The United Sates cannot be compared to the model Mr. Hamilton presents because the “prevalent venality and corruption“ of our federal government has produced a standing army he might not have considered. Or am I wrong? Did Mr. Hamilton give us a prophetic view of America’s future? But, I digress.

 

What is the standing army? I believe most of us would consider the Army and National Guard to be the standing army referred to by Mr. Hamilton. I submit the size and scope of the standing army has been increased to include civilian forces, such as the Transportation Security Administration. “I love being treated like a criminal by the TSA”. They occupy all  major airports within the United States. Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team (VIPER) “is a Transportation Security Administration program. Various government sources have differing descriptions of VIPR’s exact mission. It is specifically authorized by 6 U.S.C. § 1112 which says that the program is to “augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States“. Authority for the program is under the Secretary of Homeland Security. The program falls under TSA’s Office of Law Enforcement.” “The VIPR teams detain and search travelers at railroad stations, bus stations, ferries, car tunnels, ports, subways, truck weigh stations, rest areas, and special events.” – Source, Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team

 

Department of Homeland Security? Sounds like the German Schutzstaffel, “translated to Protection Squadron or defense corps, abbreviated SS.” Did I wake up in Nazi Germany this morning? “New DHS Report Announces Authority to Seize and Examine Electronics From Travelers Along the Border for Any Reason” – TheBlaze, Christopher Santarelli, 02/10/2013. Please read DHS document “Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Impact Assessment, Border Searches of Electronic Devices”. Gentlemen this covers the entire state of Michigan.

 

“ICE and CBP exercise longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent. Two public Directives issued in 2009 (CBP Directive No. 3340-049 “Border Search of Electronic Devices Containing Information” and ICE Directive No. 7-6.1 “Border Searches of Electronic Devices”) impose requirements governing use of this authority in searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing information contained in electronic devices.”

 

The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and long-standing, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits…”

 

“Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights.”

 

The military is now conducting joint exercises with civilian forces across the United States. Since the Department of Homeland Security came into existence they have been funding state and local police, as well as, sheriffs departments. Police forces have been militarized even though they deny it. America’s War Within, States spend billions on local homeland security – Center for Investigative Reporting, 12/21/2011 and Local police stockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear “- Center for Investigative Reporting, Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz, 12/21/2011, “Law enforcement leaders nonetheless bristle at the word “militarization,” even if the defense community itself acknowledges a convergence of the two.” Is this what Obama referred to as a civilian national security force equal to that of the military?

 

Last year the Department of Homeland Security bought between 1.4 and 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. They also requested bids for 7,000 selectable fire M4s. Why does DHS need 7,000 M4s for personal defense? DHS-HSI Homeland Security Investigations El Paso SRT MRAP Armored Vehicle 2,500 are in the process of being built and/or deployed across the country. For high risk warrants? Are they serving warrants on standing armies? Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety and Privacy Concerns – EFF, Trevor Timm, 11/20/2012. 30,000 General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers flying over the United States of America? Why the massive build up of fire power? When does the war start? There is great cause for alarm!

 

I wonder if Alexander Hamilton ever considered that the United States Coast Guard would be under the control of the Department of Homeland Security in the distant future.

 

As I understand it, the FBI no longer considers the United States Constitution when conducting it’s functions. The FBI only follows the laws passed by Congress. FBI Unclear On Targeted Rule Within The U.S., What the hell are we talking about and why are we talking about this? FBI Director Robert Mueller can’t answer the question? There is GREAT CAUSE for alarm!

 

How large is the standing army today? I have no idea. Where is the new standing army located? Everywhere! We do know who controls this massive standing army. The Executive branch (progressive) controls the military, Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. DHS has been training, equipping and arming law enforcement officers over the last 10 years. Who do these law enforcement officers report to and take orders from? These are men and women who used to serve the public, but now they serve their overlords, and are concerned about their salaries and union pensions rather than protecting and serving the public. Are their loyalties to state and local governments or DHS? Police Brutality – Sheriff Mack Speaks Out The video speaks for itself. The civilian division of the new standing army has become a home for the sociopaths of our society. THERE IS GREAT CAUSE FOR ALARM!

 

Further, we have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to contend with. The military, controlled by Obama (progressive), can walk into any sovereign state, take prisoner any citizen(s) and hold them indefinitely and without writ of Habeas corpus. Water boarding American citizens on US soil doesn’t seem out of the question. THERE IS GREAT CAUSE FOR ALARM!

 

About 30 years ago I was invited to deputy sheriff’s house. In town for the night was a U.S. Marshal and a U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Marshal and I were having a conversation and the subject turned to his 1911. I asked him if I could have a look. He ejected the magazine, cleared the remaining round and handed me his weapon. I checked the weapon for absence of it’s magazine and ensured there was no brass in the chamber. At the point, the U.S. Attorney went up one side of us and down the other. The U.S. Marshal and I burst into laughter! I guess what I remember from decades past is no longer reality.

 

However, there is some hope! Sheriff Mack & Hundreds of Sheriffs Stand Up Against Obama Gun Grab. The list of 283 Sheriffs and 8 State Sheriffs Associations Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control, as of 02/01/2013.

 

“We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionately increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28, The Same Subject Continued (The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered). God help us!

 

“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared. God help us!

 

These foregoing facts are not unknown to “We the People”. We have watched as this great country has moved ever closer to a “police state” controlled by the progressives. “We the People” are alarmed! Our Founding Fathers feared standing armies because they are controlled by tyrants. When tyrants rise to power the liberty of the people suffers and the power of the legislature is diminished. “We the People” see this happening now! Alexander Hamilton’s statements are not to be taken lightly. “A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment.” This was the position of the Founding Fathers as I will demonstrate.

 

There is a clear distinction between the powers of the federal and state governments. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

 

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 45, The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered.

 

 

 

What Mr. Madison describes is not what we experience today. How did the federal government take control of “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”? Alexander Hamilton argued against adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He stated, “The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.” Before you go running off and screaming hysterically about what an evil man Mr. Hamilton was let us review his argument and think.

 

 

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered

 

Please allow me to slightly adjust Mr. Hamilton’s argument. Instead of considering “liberty of the press” (First Amendment, Bill of Rights) being regulated by those “men disposed to usurp”, let us consider the Second Amendment. Consider Article 1 Section 8 and notice the power to regulate firearms is not enumerated. In other words, the Constitution does not confer a regulating power with respect to firearms. Mr. Madison states, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined”. Since firearm regulation has not been enumerated and defined that power doesn’t exist. Mr. Hamilton states, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” The Second Amendment states, “shall not be infringed”. This is confirmation that the federal government has no power to regulate firearms. We can replace “liberty of the press” with any clause in the Bill of Rights. These rights are not found in Article 1, Section 8. Mr. Hamilton is absolutely correct! The Constitution is a Bill of Rights. Further, think about your daily life. Then read Article 1, Section 8. Any subject that you choose in your daily life that isn’t enumerated and defined is off limits to Congress. Say it with me now, “Congress can’t touch it!” Think about it!

 

Lets examine Alexander Hamilton’s prophetic warning written about 222 years ago. Please allow me to change his wording just a bit, “men and women inclined (disposed) to take or make use of without right (usurp)”. The argument is, if we add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution law breakers will confer a regulating power over state militia and firearms. Since state militia and firearms are now enumerated, the regulating power does exist. Do you now understand Mr. Hamilton’s warning and what has been happening in this country for a very long time? The usurpers are the “tares” standing tall above the wheat.

 

Listen! “That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.” – James Madison

 

Usurpations by the federal government are not limited to the method Mr. Hamilton warned us about. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, “To regulate Commerce… among the several States,” is another method. “Jefferson argued that “regulate” simply means “to make regular”, that is to keep the states and others from interfering with the regular movement of goods between merchants across interstate borders.” – The Constitution In Exile, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, page 13. The federal government has redefined or construed the meaning of interstate and intrastate commerce to include what ever the usurpers require. That does include the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition.

 

WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN., Decided Nov. 9, 1942.

 

“For nearly a century, however, decisions of this Court under the Commerce Clause dealt rarely with questions of what Congress might do in the exercise of its granted power under the Clause, and almost entirely with the permissibility of state activity which it was claimed discriminated against or burdened interstate commerce. During this period, there was perhaps little occasion for the affirmative exercise of the commerce power, and the influence of the Clause on American life and law was a negative one, resulting almost wholly from its operation as a restraint upon the powers of the states. In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”

 

“It was not until 1887, with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act, that the interstate commerce power began to exert positive influence in American law and life. This first important federal resort to the commerce power was followed in 1890 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, thereafter, mainly after 1903, by many others. These statutes ushered in new phases of adjudication, which required the Court to approach the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the light of an actual exercise by Congress of its power thereunder.”

 

The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. . . . The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.”

 

Again, “Jefferson argued that “regulate” simply means “to make regular”, that is to keep the states and others from interfering with the regular movement of goods between merchants across interstate borders.” In Wickard v. Filburn we see Congressional overreach supported by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). Gentleman, I wrote about this subject in the last 10 page document I sent to your offices. Where I demonstrate the flaws in the Michigan firearms freedom act, SB63.

 

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” – James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

 

Not only do we have usurpations flowing from Washington D.C. But we must also contend with carefully planned brainwashing of the general public. Then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Eric Holder, spoke before the Woman’s National Democratic Club in 1995. “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes. You know, when I was growing up, people smoked all the time. Both my parents did. But over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.”

 

Holder continued, “I’ve also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-gun, anti-violence message. Every day, at every school, at every level. One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday, and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

 

Every day, every year and for years our children will hear the same message. Brainwashing through repetition. Adult bullies belittle defenseless children. School suspensions over games involving pretend guns, drawing pictures of guns, and playing cops and robbers outside in the sunshine. What insanity is this? Wimpifying America. Our tax dollars fund public education. The teachers are paid with our tax dollars. Programs are funded with our tax dollars. It is reasonable to assume “We the People” are paying for our children to be brainwashed by the progressives. Our tax dollars are being used against us. Their goal is to have gun owners cowering in the corner. Isn’t that what Eric Holder said in 1995?

 

Adults are manipulated by the main stream media. Through repetition over the years we have been taught “we need gun control”, “we must have some reasonable gun control”. If we don’t have gun control America will become the wild west and everyone is going to DIE! Gentlemen, I stopped watching TV over three years ago. You might want to give it a try. Or maybe you like being programmed by the progressives? Maybe you could stop watching TV, buy a copy of The Federalist and start reading it? Maybe a requirement for occupying public office should be a demonstrated knowledge of The Federalist?

 

As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office – The Daily Caller, Charles C. Johnson, 09/30/2012. “As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.”

 

“The ROTC headquarters was ultimately renamed the Malcolm X lounge as the SAAS organization demanded. It later became a hang-out spot for another future U.S. leader, Barack Obama, according to David Maraniss’ best-selling ‘Barack Obama: The Story’.”

 

Years later Eric Holder (Progressive) becomes the Attorney General at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. He is implicated in a cover-up of a program called Fast and Furious. Federal agents allowed guns to walk across the US/Mexican border. How many people have died as a result of that failed operation? How many laws were broken? Yet, “We the People” are facing harsh gun controls and confiscation? No, I don’t trust the federal government, and the United States Code should be burned to ash!

 

Eric Holder on guns, felons and mental health issues. “But there are certain people. People who have mental health issues perhaps. People who have felony records…These are all categories of people who are not entitled to carry guns. One of the things the president has asked me to do is look at that list, those categories and see if, um, we need to expand it. To make sure that again the wrong people do not come into possession of guns.” What the Attorney General is saying is they want to increase the numbers of citizens who are “debarred” from the use of personal property – firearms. You may ask how that is possible? Reason with me for a few minutes.

 

The state of New York has enacted law that requires firearm registration. If the citizens of NY do not comply are they now felons? The state of California doesn’t think the state of NY went far enough! Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’, TheBlaze, Jason Howerton, 02/08/2013. By the stroke of a pen government will and has increased the number of felons in this country. Peaceable men and women that refuse to comply with unconstitutional law have become felons and their firearms WILL be CONFISCATED. Peaceable citizens will be shipped off to the CORPORATE prisons and THAT is a very alarming subject! Did you know the United States imprisons more of it’s citizens, percentage-wise, than any other country in world? All at a hefty $40,000 a year per prisoner paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. So who’s getting penalized along with the prisoners? The taxpayers. Are we passing laws just to fulfill corporate prison contracts?

 

Many people in this country believe they are superior to a person with a felony record. Fact, a person that has served his time according to law and lives peaceably must NOT be regarded as a second class citizen, slave or felon. Yet, there are states that strip voting rights from these folks permanently. A former felon has the right to reinvent his or herself and walk a new path without having a former act held over their head which, continues the punishment FOREVER. There is NO state government forgiveness and that is tragic. To treat the former felon as a second class citizen or slave is to demonstrate lack of concern for a neighbor’s natural rights and the inability to forgive. So, you want to take away your neighbors’ natural rights to defend his/her family and property by disarming them? Unfortunately, the church no longer teaches forgiveness, or at least the way Jesus taught it. Since this IS the case, all firearms owners who become felons are to be shunned by society. Think very carefully before you speak on this subject.

 

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms. – Thomas Jefferson

 

Furthermore, what are mental health issues? And who will make the determinations of whether someone is fit or not to be armed? Suppose a loved one dies, maybe tragically. A member of your family seeks grief counseling, and depression is the professional diagnosis. Medication is prescribed and counseling begins. As time passes the family member’s depression has vanished and they return to being a productive, loving member of the family. However, there are now permanent medical records available to the federal government.

 

It is deemed, by the powers that be, your family member isn’t stable enough to possess a firearm. If that isn’t bad enough, you also are now “debarred” the use of firearms because of your proximity to that family member. So now the rest of the family cannot have firearms in the home as long as the person deemed unfit cannot possess or be near a firearm. You don’t think this is possible? Thus further breaking down the family foundation, and the ability to defend the family from home invasions, robberies, rapes, potential murder, etc. These are the unintended consequences of passing prohibitive laws without foresight.

 

Next, what is the mind set of mental health professionals and their political agenda or affiliation? My understanding is that the vast majority of the PhDs are extremely liberal. You want these men and women determining your mental status with respect to firearms? Think very carefully before speaking on this subject, how you view your neighbors natural rights, before you propose a new law. Every time a tragedy happens in this country, it is counted as a “crisis”, and the mobs cry, “there ought to be a law!” Will you succumb to “mob rule”?

 

Admin Pushes Gun Restrictions For Law-Abiding Citizens While Failing To Prosecute Criminals “During today’s Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, Sen. Sessions questioned the Baltimore County Police Chief, who testified for the majority, about the purpose of pushing for measures that would restrict the access of lawful Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights while the Administration has simultaneously failed to prosecute laws targeting criminals who use guns in the commission of a violent act or other crime.”

 

The “bread and butter” cases, felons carrying a firearm during “the commission of a violent act or other crime”. Really? Let’s reason together for a few moments. What is a crime? A crime is the intentional breaking of law that rises up from the United States Constitution, “which shall be made in pursuance there of”. What Senator Sessions is referring to are laws contained within the United States Code. The question becomes, are these laws constitutional?

 

I immediately have a problem with the phrase “bread and butter”. That phrase suggests the federal legal system is a money making scheme and that is my position. Do the victims of crimes receive restitution or do proceeds go to the state and federal governments? The legal system isn’t about truth or justice. It is about who has the better lawyer. And the governments have unlimited funds, tax payer dollars, to prosecute cases while defense funds are often insufficient. I invite you to ask Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia if I am correct in my assertions.

 

There are men and women in this country with felony convictions that have chosen to walk a new path in spite of the odds against them. They may not understand Rule of Law but they live Rule of Law. These former felons are “debarred” the natural right of self defence and this is a true crime! These folks are forbidden from defending themselves and their families from those that have chosen a life of crime, career criminals. It is a crime that the citizens and governments of this great country can’t discern the difference between peaceable citizens and career criminals. Shame on you! And yes, you do deny natural rights to others that are granted by God. Shame on you! I will offer no apologies for my position on this subject.

 

The great joke proposed by Senator Sessions has no humor it in. He suggests Attorney General Eric Holder, DOJ, prosecute more gun crimes with existing federal laws. Let me get this strait, a man responsible for running guns across international borders, resulting in how many murders?, is to prosecute the citizens of America for violent gun crimes. I’m not laughing. Eric Holder is a career criminal, in my opinion.

 

When governments break laws the citizens begin to ask, “why should we follow YOUR laws?” Anarchy becomes the desired reality. The Anti-Federalists are quick to jump up and yell, “We told you so!” Here we are once again debating the same old arguments that have taken place for over 200 years! Why, you ask? Because we elect men and women that are “disposed to usurp” in both the federal and state governments. It is really that simple.

 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – President John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798

 

In contrast, “Our Constitution says what government can and cannot do. But it doesn’t say what government ought to do.” – Barack Obama. Our Constitution is “inadequate” to Obama and the “left”, to the Marxists, communists, fascists, and other immoral people who are in our government right now. Therefore, they ignore, subvert, or usurp powers not granted. The United States Constitution is useless to them because they are immoral people and it stands in their way, as it should! That is why they want to abolish the United States Constitution. It’s not the Constitution or the Founding Fathers that are the problem. It’s the immoral men and women who have occupied our governments over the last 100 years.

 

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.

 

The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.”

 

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate.

 

 

Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28, The Same Subject Continued (The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered)

 

 

 

Gun Control, Self Defense & The 2nd Ammendment Rally in Albany, NY  “There will be more than seven rounds in the magazine.”

 

My sympathies to the peaceable citizens of New York and California. Both federal and state governments have betrayed the people. “The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” God help them! God help us all!

 

Update: Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons, Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, 02/14/2013. “4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

 

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

 

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

 

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

 

  1. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.”

 

“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.” Progressives are actively redefining the gun control debate. There is nothing to redefine. The Second Amendment is not about hunting Bambi’s father or target shooting. It is about defense of “We the People” and the states against a tyrannical federal government. It forces the federal government to think carefully before taking unlawful actions against the states and their citizens. It is about the natural right of self defense. The Second Amendment is about shedding blood, if necessary, in the cause of liberty! I make no apologies for the meaning of the Second Amendment nor my support for it!

 

Wars have been fought throughout history because men have always sought to live free of those who seek to control others with unjust laws and force. Any one who thinks the eras of the Caesars have ended are small minded, deluded, insignificant individuals that are devoid of any historical knowledge. The Romans were incapable of conquering the Celts and Germanic tribes. They would not submit to Roman authority. Their men and women died fighting for liberty, freedom from Roman rule. Such are alive today, in this state and in this country. It has happened before and it will happen again. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 10, The Same Subject Continued (The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)

 

The McLaughlin Group 1/4/13, Repeal Amendment II? Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), time index 16:58 – 22:04. Molon Labe! “The phrase was reportedly the defiant response of King Leonidas I of Sparta to Xerxes I of Persia when asked to lay down their arms and surrender, at the onset of the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC).”

 

Proof Of A U.S. Police State, Personal Liberty Digest, Bob Livingston, 02/11/2013. “America has fast descended into a police state. The trouble is that we want to believe in the rule of law and the system that alleges to support and enforce it. But when reality collides with illusion, it is too late. No matter how bad things seem, we always think that times will get better and that government will do the right thing.”

 

“Only a few people left Germany in the early 1930s. They could clearly see the evolving tyranny. Many who stayed thought that things would not get so bad or that times would get better. They suffered from normalcy bias, a form of cognitive dissonance. They paid.”

 

“The Internet has thrown a wrench into the cogs that run the government propaganda machine and suppress the people. Information is now available that was once hidden or manipulated in favor of the state. The wall of propaganda has been breached.”

 

Guns And Ammo Production Maxed Out: “This is a Society Preparing For War, SHTFplan, Mac Slavo, 02/14/2013.”Manufacturers were running full-bore, but couldn’t come close to keeping up with market demand.”

 

“It wasn’t just the AR-15s, the AK-pattern rifles, the M1As, and the FALs that were sold out. It really hit me when I realized that the World War-era M1 Garands, M1 carbines, and Enfield .303s were gone, along with every last shell. Ubiquitous Mosin-Nagants—of which every gun store always seems to have 10-20—were gone. So was their ammo. Only a dust free space marked their passing. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

 

“Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone.”

 

This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.”

 

“We traveled to Texas for Industry meetings concerning the shortages, here’s what we were told.”

 

“Smith & Wesson-is running at Full capacity making 300+ guns/day-mainly M&P pistols. They are unable to produce any more guns to help with the shortages.

 

RUGER: Plans to increase from 75% to 100% in the next 90 days.

 

FNH: Moving from 50% production to 75% by Feb 1st and 100% by March 1. Remington-Maxed out!

 

Armalite: Maxed out.

 

DPMS: Can’t get enough parts to produce any more product.

 

COLT: Production runs increasing weekly…bottle necked by Bolt carrier’s.

 

LWRC:Making only black guns, running at full capacity…can’t get enough gun quality steel to make barrels.

 

Springfield Armory: Only company who can meet demand but are running 30-45 days behind.

 

AMMO: Every caliber is now Allocated! We are looking at a nation wide shortage of all calibers over the next 9 months. All plants are producing as much ammo as possible w/ of 1 BILLION rounds produced weekly. Most is military followed by L.E. and civilians are third in line.

 

MAGPUL is behind 1 MILLION mags, do not expect any large quantities of magpul anytime soon. [Colorado ammo magazine maker Magpul threatens to leave state over gun bill, denverpost, Kurtis Lee, 02/14/2013. “$85 million at stake”.]

 

RELOADERS… ALL Remington, Winchester, CCI & Federal primers are going to ammo FIRST. There are no extra’s for reloading purposes… it could be 6-9 months before things get caught up. Sorry for the bleak news, but now we know what to expect in the coming months.”

 

Gun Companies Boycott New York: Urging all Manufactures to Stop Selling Firearms to New York Police, Off Grid Survival, 02/14/2013. “Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.”

 

“The recent boycott seems to have been inspired by Ronnie Barrett, owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms [must watch video] Manufacturing. Barrett Firearms, the company that manufacturers the most popular .50-caliber weapons in the world, refuses to sell firearms to any state that bans the civilian ownership of their firearms.”

 

What is the militia? Militia is not the United States military. Regulated militia of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, ceased to exist with the Militia Act of 1903. All state militias became the National Guard and control was transferred to the military. From that point on the National Guard could fight in foreign countries and has. Article 1, Section 8 militia only functions on United States soil, The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Militia. Congress choose not to use it’s enumerated power, with respect to militia, from that point on. Prior to 1903 there were two groups of militia, Article 1, Section 8, controlled by the Commander in Chief and Second Amendment militia which, was controlled by the states. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”.

 

 

 

 

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

 

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

 

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

 

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

 

Why did Israel wander in the wilderness for 40 years? The spies brought back an evil report from the land of Canaan. “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” In spite of the evil report Joshua, Caleb and Jephunneh were ready and willing to fight! The congregation feared death at the hands of these giants more than they feared the Lord. And the congregation thought to stone Joshua, Caleb and Jephunneh. Therefore, only Joshua, Caleb and Jephunneh crossed the Jordan. The rest of that generation died wondering in the wilderness because of their disrespect for the Lord. I am NOT a grasshopper, and I am NOT afraid of the federal government!

 

Gentlemen, I have presented 18 plus pages, including links to other documents and video, of reasoning as to why there will be a Second American Revolution. I have provided four methods the Progressives and federal government use to usurp power. There are two more methods I will explain in the next paper, 10 pages. This paper is already long enough. The question now stands, will the Michigan legislature follow in the foot steps of California and New York which, have openly sided with our tyrannical federal government? Or will the Michigan legislature take action and stand with her citizens? The bills I’ve been reading seem to indicate the Michigan legislature is taking a passive role against tyranny. The federal government is laughing at you. I do suspect the legislature will have a difficult time with the proper noun Progressive and it’s history. If the Michigan government sides with her citizens we have a solution that will lead to relative safety for all. However, you will need to change the way you think.

 

Why doesn’t Michigan have a “regulated militia”? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”. Constitutionally, the Michigan legislature has the authority to create and regulate militia. That militia is not under the control of Congress or the President.  A regulated Michigan militia would be a strong deterrence to federal encroachment and force.

 

Does the Michigan legislature follow in the footsteps of the tyrants of Europe’s past? You do realize control is an illusion, right? Why do you mistrust the citizens of Michigan with firearms? James Madison suggested this is an insult! Sorry I forgot, brainwashing by the Progressives. “We must have some reasonable regulation”. Incremental steps towards total disarmament of the citizens. “We can’t have a totally armed society.” – Senator Feinstein. If we look to James Madison he would say something like, “the weapons issued to militia will be selectable fire M16s/M4s. These are the weapons of standing army”. Please forgive me. I’m not as eloquent or educated as Mr. Madison was. I’m also sure the vast majority of the Michigan legislature has no or little knowledge of James Madison, 4th President of the United States.

 

Who are the militia? They are all of the able-bodied men and women of Michigan who are armed, trained, and ready to be called up at a moments notice when the local and state  governments need armed assistance. Michigan needs to be defended. Gentlemen, you have your para-military force. You now have “the teeth” to enforce the Constitution and defend the state of Michigan from a tyrannical federal government. I strongly suggest you open up a dialog with so-called “unregulated militia” within the state of Michigan. Purge the main stream media and FBI programming from your minds and live as free men.

 

It should now be clear to you why the Department of Homeland Security has classified Constitutionalists, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Conservatives and Veterans as potential domestic terrorists. We understand the correct operation of our government and see what the Progressives have been working towards over the last 100 years. If we are correct, they have no power. All across this nation free people are harassed by DHS trained local police. Any one of us that stands in the way of the Progressive assent to absolute power is a threat.

 

“The [Next] Shot Heard Around the World” will travel at the speed of the Internet. This is no longer the early 1990s!

 

Gentlemen, let me refresh your memory of history of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, “The Shot Heard Around the World,” and the minds, the hearts and souls of the men who fought and died for our independence. They risked their wealth, their families, their reputations, and even their lives to build this nation. “We The People” remember.

 

If They Want To Have A War…

 

Sergeant William Munroe of the Lexington militia pulled his cloak tighter about him against the chill breeze of the night. At least the rain had stopped, he thought, glancing at the now-clear sky. There could be worse nights for his twelve-man squad to stand guard duty. Behind him, the house for which he and his men were responsible—the home of Lexington’s minister, Jonas Clark—was dark and silent, all its occupants asleep.

 

There was good reason for the militia to be there. Thanks to their Tory friends, the British were well acquainted with Clark. They knew that he preached independence, and they were aware that he had not only moderated the town’s debates on the issue but had also written position papers on it. Patriots throughout eastern Massachusetts were on the alert to expect word at any time that the Redcoats had left Boston and begun marching northwest to Concord to confiscate the weapons, gunpowder, and military supplies stored in the armory. The quickest road went right through Lexington, and that meant Clark’s house was directly in their path.

 

This night the Patriots had additional cause for concern. Clark’s home was a frequent meeting place for Patriot leaders, because John Hancock, a distant cousin of Clark’s wife, often visited them and sometimes brought other Patriot leaders with him. In fact, he had been staying with the Clarks for the past twelve days, and Samuel Adams had joined him a week ago. The British would like nothing better than to capture Adams and Hancock engaged in treasonable activity.

 

Shortly after midnight on April 19, Sergeant Munroe and his comrades heard the hoofbeats of a rider coming fast up the Bedford road from the town green, called the common. In a few moments, Paul Revere reined in his foam-specked and panting horse, whose flanks were bleeding from the cuts of Revere’s old-fashioned silver spurs.

 

“The Regulars are coming out,” he yelled at Clark’s house.”

 

Sergeant Munroe did not know Revere and tried to shut him up, admonishing him that he was waking everyone up.

 

“You’ll have noise soon enough,” retorted Revere, brushing past the sergeant. “The Regulars are on their way.”

 

He banged loudly on the front door of the parsonage. Instantly, window sashes flew up all over the house, as Jonas Clark, many of his twelve children, and both Adams and Hancock stuck their heads out to see what was happening.

 

Hancock instantly recognized the alarm rider. “Come in, Revere, we’re not afraid of you!”

 

Revere relayed all the information he had, and shortly afterward alarm rider William Dawes, who had come by another route, arrived at the house. Urgently the men discussed the situation, one of them asking Clark if the men of Lexington would fight if they were fired upon. The minister responded: “I have trained them for this very hour.”

 

Several hours later they all walked down to Buckman Tavern on the common to confer with members of the militia, some of whom had been spending the night there. It was decided that Revere and Dawes, weary as they were, should ride the seven miles over to Concord in order to alert the town of the British plans.

 

As Adams, Hancock, and Clark returned to the parsonage, the tolling of Lexington’s church bell summoned the rest of the militia to muster on the common. Hancock sat at the Clarks’ table, sharpening his sword and insisting that he was going to join the town’s militia to fight the British. After Clark, Adams, and Revere (who had returned after being detained by a British patrol) argued at length with Hancock that he was of more use to the Patriot cause as a leader than a soldier, they finally convinced him. He, Adams, and Revere piled into Hancock’s carriage and rode off toward Woburn shortly before the Redcoats arrived.

 

“Stand your ground!” Captain John Parker called out to the seventy-odd members of the militia1 who were hastily forming a line on the Lexington common. “Don’t fire, unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here!”

 

A few men must have cheered, but probably most did not look up from their preparations. They were tamping down powder charges with wadding, rolling musket balls down the three-foot-long barrels of their muskets, and securing them with more wadding. With the exception of the church bell that was still sounding the alarm and the drummer boy who was beating “to arms,” it was strangely quiet. They were too busy to talk.

 

Jonas Parker, the Captain’s first cousin, took his position. With deliberation he put his tricornered hat on the ground in front of him and filled it with musket balls and flints. He had told his friends that he was resolved “never to run from before the British troops,” and he was about to prove it. On his left, Isaac Muzzey was topping up his powder horn from the open keg that was being brought down the line. On his right, Jonathan Harrington was trying to look relaxed, conscious that his young wife was watching him from the upstairs window of their house by the common.

 

The light of early dawn played through the limbs of shade trees just beginning to bud, their red-tipped branches throwing thin shadows across the green toward the men. It was starting off to be a chilly but beautiful day, with a clear sky and somewhat blustery winds.

 

“Here they come!” cried someone, and all eyes turned to the east corner of the triangular common. Coming up the road in the distance could be seen the first ranks of a column of British Regulars—marching in double time directly toward them. There were far more than Captain Parker had anticipated—seven hundred, in fact, outnumbering them at least ten to one. From his experience in the French and Indian Wars, he knew what they had to do. “Disperse, you men!” he commanded up and down the line. “Do not fire. Disperse!”

 

To make a stand now in the face of such overwhelming odds would be nothing but a stupid, pointless waste. Instead, they would fall back, melt away into the countryside, and beat the British to Concord. Revere and the other alarm riders would have already roused all the towns within three hours’ march, and by the time they got to Concord, there would be enough Minutemen and militia to make a fight of it.

 

So Captain Parker and most of his band turned away from the oncoming British and started to leave the common.

 

But now bloodlust swept through the British forces. Months of bitter frustration, combined with supreme arrogance, exploded at the sight of these rebel bumpkins daring to oppose them. Venting their rage in long battle shouts and huzzahs, the Redcoats broke ranks and charged onto the green, redoubling their efforts as they saw most of the Americans turning away, apparently full of fear.

 

Major John Pitcairn, the British officer in command, sensed that he was losing control of his troops. Spurring his horse forward, he yelled out to them: “Soldiers, don’t fire! Keep your ranks. Form and surround them.” Then to the militia, he shouted, “Throw down your arms, and you’ll come to no harm.”

 

But other, younger British officers were caught up in the same excitement that gripped their troops. A pistol shot rang out and then another (the only pistols on the green that day were carried by British officers). Two or three nervous shots followed, mixed with confused cries of “Fire” and “Hold your fire.”

 

Finally, a junior officer in the vanguard of the charge yelled, “Fire, fire, damn you, fire!” and waving his sword in a sweeping circle around his head to signal a volley, he pointed it at the militia.

 

A volley crashed across the common, and everyone stopped. It was as if both sides were startled by this development, and each looked at the other to see what had happened. None of the men of Lexington were hit, which was not surprising, considering that the British had not stopped to take aim. And the Redcoats themselves were obscured behind a cloud of powder smoke. The British regulars, composed of light infantry and grenadiers, the fastest and strongest of Gage’s expeditionary force, were seasoned professionals. They were the first to come to their senses, and now they quickly formed into crisp, even lines and reloaded.

 

“Throw down your arms, damn you!” A British officer on horseback called out to the militia. “Why won’t you rebels lay down your arms?”

 

As if in answer, several militia fired then, and the officer, standing in his stirrups, swung his sword and shouted to his men, “Fire, by God, fire!”

 

A second volley, this one well aimed, tore into the militia. Jonas Parker, who had stood his ground, fell. Badly wounded and unable to get up, he struggled to reload his musket where he lay. On his left, Isaac Muzzey was killed instantly; on his right, Jonathan Harrington was hit in the chest. He stumbled away toward his house, fell, got up, and fell again. He crawled the rest of the way, gushing blood from the hole in his chest. His horrified wife ran downstairs to help him in. As she opened the door, he reached out to her and died at her feet. Behind him, Jonas Parker was run through with a bayonet as he tried to raise his musket.

 

The only Patriots left on the common were the dead and the wounded. Some of the light infantry, out of control, were chasing fleeing members of the militia. The main body of British, however, gave three triumphant huzzahs to celebrate their victory and then marched down the road toward Concord. As the sound of their fifes and drums receded in the distance, quiet returned to the common, broken only by the muffled sound of women weeping.

The Battle of Lexington had lasted less than a quarter of an hour. But for the British, a long day—the first of an eight-year ordeal—was just beginning.

 

Down the country lanes pounded the alarm riders, urging their horses onward. And in the fields, farmers would stop their plowing and listen to the approaching hoofbeats. Then the rider, covered with dust, his horse lathered, would appear. “To arms, to arms! The war’s begun. They’re heading for Concord,” was all he had time to shout as he passed. Farmers to the north and east for miles around left their plows in mid-furrow, grabbed their muskets and powder horns, filled their pockets with musket balls, and raced down the road to their assembly points.

 

Less than an hour after the British fired on the Lexington militia, word reached Concord, where the town’s militia was already mustered. William Emerson, Concord’s minister, turned out on the common in his black robe to stand with the militia. While the men nervously awaited the arrival of the British troops, the townspeople hastily hid the stores of the armory in basements, fields, and attics. Emerson noticed that one of his flock, an eighteen-year-old named Harry Gould, was trembling. In clear tones he reassured him: “Stand your ground, Harry! Your cause is just, and God will bless you.” Thus encouraged, Gould went on to distinguish himself in the actions of the day.

 

The seven hundred British Regulars had been moving fast, covering the seventeen miles from Cambridge to Concord in seven hours—including the action at Lexington. Soon thereafter, the town militia decided to pull back across North Bridge, next to Emerson’s home. Reaching Concord an hour before noon, the main body of Redcoats stayed in the town, while search parties went off in different directions looking for the contents of the armory. But, except for finding some gun carriages, they were unsuccessful.

 

The largest British contingent continued on up the road toward North Bridge, where they left a hundred men behind and went on. Scarcely were they out of sight than the Patriot column that had been shadowing them from across Concord River now filed down toward the bridge. Hastily pulling back across the bridge toward the town, a few of the British panicked and fired, and the officer in charge ordered a volley. This cut down several of the militia, who finally fired a volley of their own, dropping four Redcoats.

 

The British soldiers were shocked. These farmers had not scurried away at the first volley, as those at Lexington had seemed to. Here they stood their ground and calmly returned fire. And they could shoot.

 

As the first British squad knelt to reload, the second took aim behind them. At that instant the second squad became aware that there was no third squad behind them. The third squad had run. Immediately the second and first squads ran after them, including a number of men who had led the charge across Lexington green. Panic now gripped them as strongly as excitement had at the beginning of the day. Their officers tried to rally them, but it was no use; their withdrawal soon became a footrace to see who could get back to Concord the fastest.

 

William Emerson had accompanied the militia as far as his home when they crossed North Bridge, but there he had stopped to assist his wife in sheltering and feeding women and children who were fleeing from the town. After the exchange of musket fire at the bridge, he intervened to keep a wounded British soldier from being bayoneted. (Emerson’s actions that day so inspired one of the Concord militiamen that he would later name his two sons William and Emerson).

 

When the British squads rejoined the main body of their troops in Concord, the officers decided to get everyone back to Charlestown as fast as they could, hoping that the reinforcements, requested after the resistance they had encountered at Lexington, had been dispatched. From that point on, they were running the bloodiest gauntlet that British troops had ever experienced—or would experience, until the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava. All along the way the militia and Minutemen kept up a steady fire on both their flanks from well-concealed positions behind stone walls, hedges, and screening woods. The increasingly frustrated British hardly ever saw more than a dozen in one body.

 

The well-trained Minutemen operated in small units, taking cover ahead of the British, aiming carefully and firing, reloading while lying down, and then running ahead to set up another ambush. The British were forced to send out large bodies of flankers to sweep the woods and fields on either side of the road. Now the Minutemen and militia began to take casualties, too. But the flankers, who had to push through underbrush and ford creeks, quickly tired and had difficulty keeping up with the column.

 

Exhaustion was also taking its toll in the ranks. The British had gotten no sleep the night before and had been making a forced march all day—twenty miles to Concord, and thus far, nine miles back. With their canteens long since empty, they had been running the gauntlet of hot musket fire for the last three hours. Redcoats were now dropping by the wayside, knowing that the rebels were scooping up stragglers but unable to take another step.

 

The most critical concern of the British officers was that the troops were no longer responding to orders that did not suit them. And more ominous, they were starting to abandon their wounded. As they approached Lexington, where nine long hours earlier they had raised their shouts of triumph, the harassing fire became so intense that the column slowed almost to a halt. Maddened by a foe they could not see, with their ammunition nearly expended, the British regulars were close to the “every-man-for-himself” stage. If that happened, their senior officers knew that the retreat would become a rout.

 

The officers were all on foot now, their horses having been been shot out from under them. In desperation, they ran to the front of the column and threatened the troops with sword and pistol to keep them from breaking and scattering. If they could be held, they would at least block the way of the others. Just beyond the Lexington green, under the heaviest fire of the day, the troops sullenly began to form into a line of defense, letting the remainder of the column pass through. Among them, they had perhaps three volleys left.

 

And then, the faint skirl of bagpipes reached them over the musket fire.

 

“It’s the first brigade,” came the shout from the rear. “We’re saved!”

All heads turned, and there, coming up the road from Cambridge was the relief column with Brigadier General Percy at the head of a thousand men. Stunned by the conditions that he found, Percy ordered the two field-pieces he had brought with him to the head of the column, where they were immediately discharged into the thickening Minutemen and militia.

 

This stopped their pursuers, who had never faced cannon before. Percy took the opportunity to form a defensive square, in the middle of which the exhausted light infantry and grenadiers lay on the ground, panting and trying to get their breath back. Percy gave them forty minutes and then ordered the column back to Charlestown, where they would have the cover of the British warships in the harbor. The harassing fire continued, stinging like hornets. But the fresh troops were now sent out as flankers, and the cannon kept the rebels at bay.

 

The fiercest fighting of the retreat was at Menotomy, where about two thousand Minutemen and militia awaited the staggering British column—more than they had seen all day. The road through the town was a mile long, with houses lining both sides. Percy was not about to lead his men into this death trap without clearing out the houses, so the British forced every house. In many of the houses, the combat was hand to hand.

 

The hero of the day was eighty-year-old Sam Whittemore, who was not at all cowed by some fifteen hundred Redcoats. When he was informed that the British were coming through the town, he prepared his own private arsenal: two pistols, a musket, and his old cavalry saber. Telling his wife that he was going to fight the British, he positioned himself behind a stone wall about 150 yards off the road and waited for the enemy. When the column approached, Sam opened fire with such accuracy that they sent a large unit to find him. Sam stayed hidden until they were almost upon him, and then he jumped up and dropped a Redcoat with his musket. Then firing both pistols, he killed two more. He was drawing his saber when a musket ball hit him in the face and knocked him down.

 

The British proceeded to bayonet Sam Whittemore over and over until they were satisfied they had killed him.

 

Only they hadn’t.

 

With half his face shot away and at least fourteen bayonet wounds in him, Sam lived to be ninety-six years old, and he vowed that if he ever had the chance, he would do it all over again.

 

It was well after dark before the British finally reached Bunker Hill and safety. That day over 250 of their men had been killed or wounded. (And in those days, a wound by a three-quarter-inch musket ball often proved fatal.) Minutemen and militia had suffered nearly a hundred casualties themselves, but the victory was clearly and gloriously theirs.

 

The last word on the day proved to be prophetic. The Reverend Jonas Clark declared: “From this day shall be dated in future history the liberty or slavery of the American world.”

 

The effect of Lexington and Concord on the Americans was to send their confidence soaring. They had stood up to the best British troops and had given them a fearful drubbing. Of its roughly 400,000 population, Massachusetts estimated that, counting every man from sixteen to sixty, they should be able to field 120,000. In which case, the war would be over in time to get the crops in! And as express riders fanned out through the colonies, the rest of America joined Massachusetts in her exuberance. – The Light and The Glory, Peter Marshall and David Manuel, chapter 19, pages 337 – 346.

 

Years later, The Continential Army accepted the surrender of the most powerful nation and military force on the planet, Great Britain.

 

Michael R. Boldt

1337 Nevada Ridge Dr. SW

Byron Center, MI 49315

mrboldt@comcast.net

2 Responses to A Case For the Second American Revolution

  1. Excellent article. Must have taken a tremendous amount of time and research. Brilliantly articulated.

  2. What can women do to protect themselves when they are threatened and harassed by trolls such as James Grissom? Who will protect us against this kind of sick person?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>