de-arm the people; make instant voters; create a new nation

then the struggle for power no more

As I listen to the continuous drone of political pontifications from both candidates and the media, I tire of the never ceasing bullshit. Even more weighing, those who buy into the diatribes of garbage. The constant prevarications to gain votes from those who are willfully ignorant, apathetic, or just plainly blinded by the political party hopes of one promising an unending stream of verbal diarrhea. What some call word salads. It’s all completely non-sensical. Or is it: Divide et impera! (divide and command – Federalist 7).

Anyway, I’ve heard it said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Although, the problem with action is the ability to react to the action being forced making reaction a problematic proposition. Especially when the desire is to change the nation from the original intended purpose, where the intent of design becomes a design of intent. The ability to achieve the result completely dependent on another’s knowledge of constitutional precepts: The willfully ignorant, apathetic, or those plainly blinded by the party dilemma. And absent of said foundation, the achievability of intent to design a desired outcome; easy.

Example: The current campaign season being foisted on a blindly believing or unsuspecting public. And either Democrat or Republican, the abandon of common sense makes the non-sensical common. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes truth. Promise the outlandish loud enough and those inclined to the absurdity forgoing any thought process: For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Take the ongoing battle over firearms. In the political nonsensicalities, President Biden is at it again, proclaiming once more that the Framers never intended the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) to be absolute. An outright lie on his part, as the Framers never intended for the Constitution to even have a Bill of Rights (BORs), presenting to the Anti-Federalists: The government cannot legislate what it cannot control (Federalist 45). Except, they didn’t buy. Their distrust of government overwhelming, demanding the BORs be included. And one must understand the Articles of Confederation and why the Anti-Federalists demanded absolutes. First, go back to British America. Second, under the Articles, there was no Federal head, just thirteen independent States, and an impotent Congress. So, their compromise in “accepting” the Constitution: Those absolutes the government had no ability to touch.

President Biden then furthered his prevaricating verbiage in the inability for one to own a cannon. Yet, and to this day, the Constitution still allows private citizens to own a cannon; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (Article I/Section 8/10^th Clause). With “Marque” defined: Letters of marque are letters of reprisal; a license or extraordinary commission granted by a sovereign of one state to his subjects, to make reprisals at sea on the subjects of another, under pretense of indemnification for injuries received (Webster’s 1828). In simpler wording: The ability to outfit, if granted through Congress, one’s own warship. So, yes, convoluted it may appear, but a private citizen can own and use a cannon: Declared in the Constitution. Plus, go back to the Constitution and the government not able to legislate what it cannot control. There is no mention of cannons to control.

Only, things either get worse, or better, depending on one’s point of view. When it comes to gun ownership, the Framers wanted WE THE PEOPLE armed as well as a standing army. Their reason being for the people the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, thus the State militia’s (National Guard). Conversely, outside of being in the militia, the Framers were clear they wanted every citizen armed and versed in the use thereof: But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist (Federalist 29).

Ever think why the Framers established both an army and State militias in the Constitution? Ever wonder why the selection of militia officers and the training authority of their militias was reserved to the States themselves: reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (Article I/Section 8/15^th Clause)? Ever think about only funding the Army for two-year increments: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (Article I/Section 8/11^th Clause)? Whereas the Navy would always be funded: To provide and maintain a Navy; (Article I/Section 8/12^th Clause), while the sole purpose of a Navy and Army: provide for the common Defence (Article I/Section 8/1^st Clause). Defence (against attack) being the key word.

Conversely, the Framers wanted everyone equally armed against a standing army: 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 to 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 nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by (State) governments possessing their affections and confidence (Federalist 46). Why? To prevent the formation, implementation and exercise of a tyrannical government!

The nation’s Framers designed our supposed small, limited government to keep the power in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE. Just like the non-existent executive order, this goes right back to the king, including his desire to control and de-arm the citizens with the net result being the American Revolution. Additionally, the ability or inability for the government (Congress) to legislate is all premised on the powers the branch is given in the Constitution, all while the nation today is at a precipice of insolvency on many fronts because of Congress. It’s desire to allow the national destruction to happen as both chambers and the other two branches willfully neglect their responsibilities while enriching their personal accounts.

Take immigration, a State’s right, not Federal, based on the Constitution: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Article I/Section 8/4^th Clause), with not one single mention of immigration thereof, nor is anything uniform today, thereby. Except, what’s been happening at the southern border for years has been an invasion. And trust me, a nation without borders does not have sovereignty nor is long a nation. And that is where the government is to protect the States: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence (Article IV/Section 4). And I get it, the George Floyd riots (including the recent college campus events) were mostly peaceful even though cities were burned to the ground. Only, worse than the Federal (Congress) in those events, were the affected State governors who intentionally failed to protect their citizens amid the destruction, bespeaking: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; (Article 1/Section 8/14^th Clause).

So, as the nation further devolves, remember, the party you stand behind will be the one that leaves you behind when the time comes. And as the power transitions from WE THE PEOPLE to the party power brokers, once they hold all the cards, everything will change. Only, of the two parties, only one can stand, dispelling the myth that either are fighting for their people, or working against each other. Because the division they foment is only an illusion to divide, understanding … How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come (Mark 3:23-26). So, ask yourself: Are the designs of party destroying the country? As from the ashes of the old, there will be new. What’s the phrase: Too big to fail. And once the Constitution is dead, those in power can institute any form of government they wish. Especially if the entire population has either willingly surrendered or been forcefully stripped of their weapons. Combine those pouring through the southern border, with Congress at some point unconstitutionally granting blanket naturalization (amnesty), those then gaining the legal status to vote. Yes, a vicious cycle designed for a purpose: The destruction of WE THE PEOPLE. Now, in President Biden’s proclamation of no absolutes, and the need to ban “weapons of war,” he also mentioned the government has the F-15. Well, it also has the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35, including nukes. And I get it, who would be dumb enough to deploy them. Guess what, America was already first! And ponder why President Biden would boast about using military equipment against his own citizens. Or loosely threaten thereof. The exact reason the Anti-Federalists railed against the Constitution and having a Federal head, based on the promise of the Federalists claiming it would be a small, limited government. And why, when one joins the military, they swear and affirm to protect and defend the Constitution, not the government or a political party.

Power is an elixir. And the surest way to implement new power; de-arm the populace (while also flooding the nation with new willing voters). That’s one reason the Framers wanted everyone armed: … 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 (Federalist 46). And the Federal, limited in power, maintains the States power (or they’re supposed to be): … the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate (State) 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 (Federalist 46). And if anyone believes the two dilemmas here presented and the nation currently faces (Firearms/immigration) are not intrinsically linked to change this country forever, think again: … 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 (Federalist 46). So, ask yourself: Has the government become the oppressor for a purpose? And is any reaction now too late? My God people: Wake up!