If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

solgunsI feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

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.

supremeThis is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

founderspicI could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770’s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

thinkingYou must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours. Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. It’s now 16 days later and this is still the most popular post on our blog. Keep fighting for what is right. We must stand united. -Dean Garrison 1-20-13

About Dean Garrison

Dean Garrison is a father of five, who faithfully pursues the American Dream. In the greatest country on earth there are hypocrites and liars abound, and he tries to expose them one at a time. It's time to get rid of the servant leaders who treat us as slaves.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5,141 Responses to If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

  1. I’m excited to discover this page. I need to to
    thank you for your time for this particularly wonderful read!!
    I definitely savored every little bit of it and I have you saved as a favorite to look at new stuff on your blog.

  2. Pingback: Sometimes Good Men Need To Stand Up Against The Bad Guys With Guns In Their Hands It Seems! | Our Blog iROCK4FREEDOM

  3. buy lortab berkeley
    paroxetine next day delivery
    non perscription cheap desogen
    celebrex to buy
    buy levaquin online.com
    low price paxil without prescription
    to buy lisinopril in AL Phil Campbell
    buy medrol online pharmacy
    Order wellbutrin No Prior Script Overnight
    buy buspar medication online
    fluconazole without prescriptin shipped overnight express
    where to buy acyclovir xr
    buy flomax prescription
    synthroid ups
    USA buy misoprostol online
    letrozole cod no prescription required
    buy dutasteride in Switzerland
    prozac without prescription
    buy discount levitra
    minocycline allergy test

  4. hot tub says:

    Hey would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with?
    I’m planning to start my own blog soon but I’m having a hard time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.

    The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most
    blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.

    P.S My apologies for getting off-topic but I had to

  5. Pingback: There Is A Temporary Stalemate Between The U.S. Government And An Armed American Public | Wordpress Management by Allen D (aka ADOGG)

  6. Pingback: There Is A Temporary Stalemate Between The U.S. Government And An Armed American Public « CheckMate!!! The Feds Are Done at the 1st Internet Woodstock!

  7. Pingback: There Is A Temporary Stalemate Between The U.S. Government And An Armed American Public | on Suppression by Allen D

  8. Someone essentially lend a hand to make critically articles I would state.

    This is the very first time I frequented your web page
    and so far? I amazed with the research you made to make
    this particular put up extraordinary. Wonderful job!

  9. Pingback: Next up: The tyranny cliff | Prepper Podcast Radio Network

  10. May I just say what a relief to find someone that truly understands what they are discussing on the web.

    Youu certainly realize how to bring a problem
    to light and make it important. A lot more people ought to look
    at tthis and understand this side of the story.
    I was surprised you’re not more popular since you definitely have the

  11. Link exchang is nothing elsee except it is simply placing the other person’s webpage
    link on your page at proper place and other person will also do same in favor of you.

  12. I do believe all of the ideas you’ve presented
    to your post. They are really convincing and will certainly work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are very brief for
    newbies. May you please extend them a little from subsequent time?
    Thank you for the post.

  13. Pingback: Written by Dean Garrison

  14. je says:

    If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.the same rights our pres Obama and every other Pearson in office and or a cop etc.there all going against it we need to get them out.

    • Rob Price says:

      You have a “right” and an “obligation” to defend this country, it’s Constitution, and it’s flag from, “all enemies, foreign and domestic…”. This “domestic” means from a corrupt President, Military, Senate, or any other group, organization, or faction thereof. “we the people…” have a Constitutional obligation to defend this country as a Civilian Militia(Second Amendment) if our military is unable to or deemed unfit to defend the country. It is up to each “CITIZEN” to decide how far they wish to exercise their Constitutional Rights-but, to remain a “Free Republic” under our Constitution it WILL take all people of this country to save it.

      • James Andrews says:

        The thing to do is keep your eyes and ears open; in New Yor state, thansk to their Nazi governor and other leftists, they have been confiscating certain weapons from completely law abiding gun owners, For now, the thing to do is fight them first, in the courts, as well as re-arm yourselves with guns via private sellers(just be careful in the Nazi states). The big thing to watch out for, (and we all need to do this), is to make sure this does not happen on a national level! Because the minute that they declare this on a nationwide scale, that they are disarming us, that is when the crap will hit the fan. But they will be the ones responsible for the bloodshed! And make sure they take the first shot. I hope that it never comes to this, but I also do not trust this president or this administration either. I do have a lot of faith in my own state’s authorities and law enforcement, and I belive that most would stand by us should something of this terrible nature ever occur.

  15. now says:

    Good blog! I truly love how it is simple on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I might be notified when a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your feed which must do the trick! Have a great day!

  16. Pingback: | If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

  17. vip57 says:

    Reblogged this on fracontract and commented:
    This is a MUST READ Article

  18. Mark says:


    You did put in your post that the stats for defensive gun use vary, but the problem with the defensive gun use figures are that the Harvard studies (link provided earlier) show that guns are used more often in antisocial ways than in defensive ways which negates at least part of this argument. I don’t think either side of the debate is on solid ground and certainly we would be arguing for a long time without changing anyones view or producing stats that catagorically prove one way or another. Again, my point here is that when I read posts and know of studies that offer a contrary view I will share them. Education is key to good decision making.

  19. Mark says:


    In addition to death by gun the numbers below start to add up closer to the defensive gun use

    “More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds. Because
    victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature
    mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 nonfatal
    violent crimes committed with guns, and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency
    departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds.”

    From John Hopkins (a commie Bloomberg liberal stinking gay loving etc etc I know!)

  20. Gerald says:

    Eww… “Wikipedia” in response? Yikes! May I add: …taken with a grain (or 2….thousand) of salt.

    ..just sayin’… ;)

  21. Mark,
    My first reply is still awaiting moderation, probably because I had so many links in it. Only my second reply is showing up. You don’t need to convince me we have a gun violence problem, we don’t disagree on that. Where we disagree is how to reduce the numbers. I don’t see guns as the problems, I see criminals as the problem. You’re correct that education is good, but I don’t need help making a decision, mine is already made. You’re sweet and I do read the links you provide.

  22. Gerald says:

    Mark, are you sure of that “31,000 people a year”,…or am I missing something here?

  23. JM says:

    Around 19,000 of those 31,000 deaths are suicides. if guns did not exist those 19,000 people would still be depressed, troubled, and feel like the only way out was death and would do so some other way. So if we are being honest the number is more like 12,000.
    “one of the leading causes” here are some others that are higher on the list:
    Drug overdoses (maybe we should outlaw Meth ….wait tried that)
    Poisonings (intentional and unintentional)
    Car fatalities–many of which are also:
    Alcohol Related deaths (how about banning alcohol …. oh, wait tried that too–in the early 1900’s–that went well. Your welcome Capone.

    Check your facts please

  24. Oswald Bastable says:

    So Mark…fewer guns in Mexico than in the US, higher rate of gun deaths…why?

  25. Hi Gerald,
    I received a similar response to a comment on another site, his words weren’t phrased as nicely. My first reply is still awaiting moderation, I have 5 other sources in it. Hopefully it will be okayed soon. My comp I instructor told us never to use wikipedia as a source. I only do if I have verified the info from other sources. I like this page because it mentions 4 different studies – Lott, Kleck & Gertz, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey. The page reports the numbers from those studies and mentions different criticisms of them. :)

  26. Hi Gerald,
    Trying again, third time I’ve tried to post this comment. I received a similar response to a comment on another site, his words weren’t phrased as nicely. My first reply is still awaiting moderation, I have 5 other sources in it. Hopefully it will be okayed soon. My comp I instructor told us never to use wikipedia as a source. I only do if I have verified the info from other sources. I like this page because it mentions 4 different studies – Lott, Kleck & Gertz, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey. The page reports the numbers from those studies and mentions different criticisms of them. :)

  27. Damn, sorry for the double post. Oh, but hey, this double post will probably make Daddy Jeb smile. :)

  28. Gerald says:

    Sorry, just seeing this.

  29. Gerald says:

    Yes,…sorry. I didn’t mean to degrade a point, only that I’ve noticed Wiki,…Snoops, etc, having issues. Hell, I (we) know that to recite court rulings anymore is like arguing over how thick the ice is – while we’re standing on it. :)

    My point (if I have one…) is that all of this (even the Constitution) is one based on our own common sense,…our own morality,…our ability to think…for ourselves.

    I must say that aside from those few herein, I am glad (as an Oathkeeper, and active duty soldier, and former Marine) that there are so many out there (you) that have a great grasp on this issue. Thank you.

  30. Brad says:

    Amen Gerald, and thank you for your service. I to am a veteran of over 8 years active service. I am proud to be on the same side as you.

  31. Forgive me for overlooking this, but I am so grateful for your service and for being an oathkeeper.

    I completely agree with your common sense sentence. Doing all the research for this issue, I’ve learned a great deal about the ideals and principles of our FFs. Reading their speeches and writings, I’m awed. I always took for granted our rights and freedoms. I never realized just how amazing, unique, and wondrous the country they created really is. The power would always reside with the people and we could only be governed by granting them the permission to do so. That the gov. is accountable to us and the Constitution recognizes and affirms our authority to remove an illegitimate and oppressive gov. and protects the means (2nd A) with which to do so.

  32. Gerald says:

    Roger that. And dittos, mate.

  33. Paul Smith says:

    Spot on, Laura. Why is it so hard to get people to see that simple truth?

  34. Ian MacLeod says:

    There always seems to be a way around the Law, Laura. Like being traitors and ignoring the Constitution, as our so-called “government” does. They call anyone who disagrees with them “traitors” and the like. Still, the Constitution remains in force, and there are a LOT of old vets still around who DO understand with the Constitution is and what it means. With the (half-fake) wealth of the “elites” running things, it’s going to be one hellofa mess, but that can’t be helped. I was told from the time I could understand much of anything that Americans are Free and by God I STILL believe it!

    We’ve been MASSIVELY mind controlled/conditioned, too, for a LONG time. Otherwise the first time creatures like Hillary try to pass “gun control” laws (they’re really people control laws of course), they’d have been on trial for High Treason. And that STILL needs to happen! Disarming the American public is no more or less than an attempt by traitors at completing a takeover! Armed citizens can be a real inconvenience to people like that, so of COURSE they call US traitors. What saddens me terribly is that so many agree with them. What happens to a disarmed citizenry has been documented so many times it’s ridiculous, but here we go again anyway. Well, it is what it is.

    Eyes open, my friends, and we’ll meet on the other side of this. Or not.

    Illegitimus non carborundum!


  35. Paul,

    I had typed out a nice thank you, but I lost it when I tried to post it. So, I will just say thank you for your nice remark.


  36. Paul Smith says:

    My pleasure, Laura.

  37. Mark says:


    Suicides – means matter – A gun does not allow for second thoughts. Studies show that not all people who attempt suicide unsuccessfully go on to try again. The main way to commit suicide in a part of Asia was to drink poisonous weed killer. Authorities reduced the toxic level of weed killer and suicides dropped by half.

    check your facts please JM

  38. Oswald Bastable says:

    You ever going to answer [b]MY[/b] question Mark? Or are you going to continue to avoid it and prove yourself the same useless, partisan hack you’ve always been?

  39. saf.org /LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
    factcheck.org /2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

    Remove the space after ‘org’ The first comment didn’t work.

  40. Alright! That worked. Going to repost the other 3.

    saf.org /lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
    http://www.businessweek.com /articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
    guncite.com /gun_control_gcdguse.html

    Remove the space after ‘org’ and ‘com’

  41. Thank You Sir, I Believe You to be a True American and Pray God Protect You and Your Family! May God Bless America!!!

  42. goyaathle says:

    Laura why are you still bothering with Mark? Insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome (Not yours Marks.) I have posted many times over that I used to be a California Correctional Officer and although the inmates had no access to firearms it did nothing to slow down the murder or suicides rates. When I was in the Army one leave I spent in London and had a chance to read their version of the Revolutionary War and how the colony was not being mistreated at all. Just a bunch of traitors.

  43. Oswald Bastable says:

    So Mark…fewer guns in Mexico than in the US, higher rate of gun deaths…why?

  44. Oswald Bastable says:

    There are over 270 millions guns owned in the US, 99% by law abiding citizens. Hunters, target shooters, competitions, carried for defense…

    If “guns are used more often in antisocial ways than in defensive ways” as you state…why are there any anti-gun folk still alive?

    I mean, if one subscribes to your position, please explain how it is possible there is anyone left in the USA to lobby for an end to guns?

  45. Thom says:

    Thats because the MSM doesn’t report the defensive use of firearms and Harvard probably ignores it as well considering how far left they lean.

  46. Thom says:

    I just wanted to point out the lack of “class” the way your stupid ass liberals friends demonstrated when Thatcher Died. Those headwrappers over there must be having a huge influence on you limeys.

  47. Thom says:

    Yeah MARK, fewer guns in Mexico, higher rate of gun related deaths. It would be that way in the US also. Did prohibition keep people from consuming alcohol? Do speeding tickets prevent drivers from breaking the speed limit? Do prisons prevent people from breaking the law? Does the Bible prevent people from sinning? Does the threat of cancer prevent people from smoking? ( I could keep this up all day.) Does ignorance keep anti-gun people from posting stupid statements on the internet?

  48. Rob Price says:

    Amen, brother!! Hit him again for me! I do believe you have run up against a giant, deaf, brick wall.LOL
    Keep up the good work Thom!
    God bless the United States of America

  49. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    LOL gotta love the last one!!

  50. Oswald Bastable says:

    It appears this blog has gone over the edge…replies no longer follow the conversation or thread they were posted in. Not that i believe, as I type this, that this post will follow the one it’s in reply to, because that no longer seems to be the case, but just because it may…the post above was directed at the limey…

  51. goyaathle,

    That comment was from a month ago. My last comment to him was that I didn’t care what his opinion was – he has no standing in this debate and his opinions are irrelevant. Someone suggested talking around him. I like that idea. :)


  52. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Mark wno????? 8)

  53. Thom,

    I agree! I was appalled by some of the comments made.

    OT: I don’t know how many of you read the press release on here regarding the New Federalist Party, but I am a founding member. I have been very busy the last two weeks working on getting everything ready to go public.

    I invite you all to check out our fb page – https://www.facebook.comNewFederalistNationalCommittee

    and our website – thenewfederalistparty.org

  54. Mark says:


    Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, many people in the country did not like her, but she won landslide general elections and changed the country forever for the better. For all the noise generated by her “bad” decisions, the fact that successive left wing governments (with large majorities) did not rescind her policies shows how popular they were. News television pictures of people not old enough to be alive when she died dancing do not represent the vast majority of the medias coverage (in the UK) of her death. Her funeral tomorrow will also inevitably show pictures of people showing disrespect, but many more people in my country had a huge respect for her, maybe not liked her policies but respected her.

  55. robert says:

    It is my believe that Obama and the liberals are going to continue their quest to take over the government and trash the constitution. If we are going to keep our rights, we are going to have to fight from them. What our military and law enforcement do will determine the outcome. —–PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL

    Our current federal government is trying to destroy our loved way of life enjoying the freedoms that our constitution provides us. The freedoms that 100s of thousands of our service men and women have died for in the past and present wars in order to preserve freedom for the next generations.

    This question is for all military and law enforcement agency personnel:

    If god-loving, freedom-loving American citizens are forced into protecting their constitution rights by the final recourse of bearing arms against the traitors in our government, where are you as an individual man or woman of the military or law enforcement going to stand?

    Will you guard the current corrupt government officials?
    will you stand with the common citizens fighting to keep our constitutional rights which is why you actually wear the uniform now?

    Remember, you pledged a sacred oath to protect the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies—not to protect an individual or a political party. God bless every man and women serving in uniform. I trust that your guns will be pointed in the direction to uphold our constitutional rights, not the impeding socialistic government officials. Without our dedicated military, Americans would have no freedoms. Without our military and law enforcement, Obama and his Cronies will not have the power to turn our free country into a totalitarian state with him as the dictator.

  56. Le says:

    I would be willing to take my uniform off and put on another that supports the 2nd Constitution if need be. I think there are millions out there that would do the same if it became necessary. The U.S. Constitution is what the United States depends upon for the rule of law. The rule of law is essential to all nations.

  57. D.M. Zuniga says:

    (I’m sorry if I am doing this wrong; I’ve tried posting three times today but my post does not show up here. I’ll try again…)

    I am responding to Dean Garrison’s original article, as well as to the latest response by “Le”, who claims (s)he is “willing to take my uniform off and put on another that supports the 2nd Constitution [sic] if need be.”

    Dean, your article suggests that it is time for everyone to kill those who come for their firearms, and that the Second Amendment is in dire peril. I think we should do our duty over our servants, to assure that they enforce the law, before blasting away at perpetrators in government.

    We The People have never — not once in 220 years — moved to enforce the U.S. Constitution in the same way we enforce all other laws: with due process of law, including seizure of assets and incarceration in prison when appropriate. I say that it’s time we do that to every perpetrator in the U.S. Congress, of high crimes (felonies) found in their respective State Penal Codes.

    That’s what the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine(TM) is designed to do. The principle is simple; it comes from James Madison’s lifelong writings, and the tactical idea comes from Alexander Hamilton’s 28th Federalist. See AmericaAgainNow (dot com) for more.

    “Le” says that the rule of law is essential to all nations. This is true; but no nation on earth today operates under true rule of law. Nations operate under various oligarchies and juntas — or occasionally under dictators.

    First, “Le”: America is not a “nation”, despite that word appearing in Francis Bellamy’s “Pledge of Allegiance” — Bellamy was an avowed fascist; look it up. We are a REPUBLIC of sovereign States under a Constitution by which We The People severely limited our central servant’s duties/powers.

    But for 150 years, our servants have egregiously violated the highest law, as Tom DiLorenzo catalogues in his latest book, Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government. Yet all these years, We The People — apex sovereigns over all governments in America — have never once superintended our States to do their duty of LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    Second, “Le”, in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16) you will find the entire lawful U.S. military described, and its tasks. No full-time ground forces are authorized in our system of government, other than Citizen Militia, to “execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions”. In other words, Lincoln should never have created a permanent U.S. Army; it has always been illegal.

    The same could be said for EVERY foreign military adventure in our history. Read the classic book ‘War is a Racket’, by USMC Major General Smedley Butler. Or read ‘The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War’, by former West Point instructor and decorated Vietnam vet Andrew Bacevich; or ‘Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq’ by Stephen Kinzer.

    Americans have forgotten — or never knew — the norms and nobility of our founders, because government schools have trained us to be unthinking drones for industry, at home and abroad. Then, industry skims the drones’ payroll accounts and sends government its cut. Mussolini defined this as fascism. It’s time to stop talking about things that will never happen (“They’ll take all our firearms!”) and start doing our duty — putting criminals behind bars.

    Forget the penny-ante criminals; I’m talking about putting the fear of God into those 535 politicians who claim to ‘represent’ us, as they openly, serially, and arrogantly violate the highest law in our civilization, making us accept counterfeit ‘money’, and work five months out of the year, to serve them and those who own them.

    So you see this isn’t about “keeping our guns” at all. Forget the 2nd Amendment for a second; according to America’s highest law, every able-bodied citizen has not only a ‘right’ but a DUTY to bear arms when necessary for the three tasks stipulated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

    Thus, all of the heated bloviation above — months of vituperation, recrimination, and childish caricature — misses the whole point. This is precisely what our enemies (those billionaires who own and control presidents and members of Congress, like so many game pieces) want to see.

    American, repent before a holy God. Remember why, and in Whose Name, this republic was founded. Remember that in all matters in which the federal servant is violating the U.S. Constitution, your STATE is a HIGHER AUTHORITY in the law than the lawless federal servant(s) who are violating the Constitution.

    Now, we have work to do. I suggest we do it. Go to AmericaAgainNow (dot com) to find out how.

  58. Mark says:

    Stop it you crazy coot!

    You have posted 3 times now – and it still sounds as crazy as the first time I saw it!

  59. I went to your website. I don’t like your ideas of freedom and I don’t want to live in the America you describe.

  60. D.M. Zuniga says:

    To answer Mark’s *ad hominem* and baseless response, I did post several times. But I only see my post one time. If Mark actually had a rational response to the AmericaAgain! website AFTER reading our FAQ page, then he might have posted his objections here. But apparently he is like so many social media denizens — mostly online to waste time and spout inane, vile, or pointless comments. An *ad hominem* like “crazy coot” doesn’t advance his position, for he *has* no position.

    Perhaps Mark is a 13-year-old, bored at school; who knows. However that may be, this thread began when Dean Garrison posted a long, passionate rant about citizens having the duty to “fight when they come for your guns”.

    I think that’s a moot question; We The People shouldn’t wait to start enforcing the law until it is too late — when government starts confiscating our firearms. For 220 years, We The People have had a *duty* to enforce the Constitution — both directly (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 15, U.S. Constitution) and as sovereigns over our State governments, when the federal servant slips its leash.

    That has been going on in broad daylight since Lincoln’s war. In my book ‘This Bloodless Liberty’, I explain that Lincoln’s war was the major watershed in American history. The powerful one percent (actually far fewer than that) who own politicians as their pets, used that war as a diversion to split America into two equal, offsetting teams. North v. South, and then Donkey v. Elephant — but really the game is rigged from the start.

    In my book — and also in a blog article on the AmericaAgain! website, entitled ‘The Red Roots of the GOP’, I explain how the GOP was the party of Karl Marx when it was created. The first GOP candidate, John Fremont, was an open Marxist. Most of Lincoln’s generals in the war, were open Marxists. Lincoln and Marx were fast friends; in fact, Marx was a darling of the New York *cognoscenti* when he was on the New York Herald editorial staff, for years!

    This isn’t about “they’re coming to take our guns!”; it’s about the weighty duties that all of us have abdicated for six generations. Electoral politics can’t arrest organized crime; only law enforcement can do that — and it MUST be superintended by US, the responsible citizens.

    The criminal courts of our States can arrest those in Congress who are openly, serially violating our highest law. It is the mission of AmericaAgain! Trust to see that they do it, as regularly as is required, for the rest of American history.

    Go to AmericaAgainNow.com and read the FAQ page. As time permits, read the AmericaAgain! Declaration.

    [Incidentally, I don’t take bait. If you’re a blithering idiot with nothing of substance to ask or say, I assume that everyone has better things to do with their time, and I refuse to bite.]

  61. Thom says:

    D.M.Zuniga<< I've read two of your latest posts, and your history lessons were very interesting. You're also right about the rhetoric thrown about on this and other bloggs and, admittingly so, I am just as guilty as the next, my bad. But the reason I am responding to you is I feel you have put my very own thoughts into your comments.

    I agree with all you have stated but for one thing. Dean Garrison does not "rant". What if those that do not believe in what you are saying accused you of ranting? I think it would mean no more to you than it does Dean Garrison when you accuse him of ranting. Considering the quality of your comments, I was surprised to read you accusing a well written patriot of ranting.

    There comes a time when talking is nothing more than a deversionary tactic used to aquire more time to carry out a plan, and if that is the case, when will the time come for action? Its becoming ever more clear that obama is up to no good. He has surrounded himself with devious and shady cohorts in every department of his administration and then some. He is, and or is trying, to pass laws that strip the citizen of his/her rights, including basic freedoms of speach and religion.

    I will leave further comment until I have visited the website you have recommended. Thanks for reading and keep in mind that by calling someone down just because you don't believe in what they are saying is good for nothing but lowering the quality of your own comment.

    PS: I was never good at following my own advice, I am more of a "do as i say , not as I do, type person.
    Semper Fi

  62. Brad says:

    Thanks Thom, I always enjoy your comments… I’ve missed you lately.

  63. D.M. Zuniga says:

    Thom, I did not intend the term ‘rant’ disparagingly; I don’t know Dean Garrison or his writing, other than that very articulate piece. Perhaps “passionate post” would have been a better term? In any case, I did not mean to disparage the man at all; only to have him consider that the whole “Second Amendment rights” national discussion makes great diversionary hay for the enemies of the Constitution.

    I take it by your closing motto, that you are or were in the Marines. In this blog post, I challenge all current and former military industry employees to consider their higher calling to the U.S. Constitution and the republic’s future:


    I hope you enjoy our website; there’s a great deal to learn there; see especially the AmericaAgain! Declaration, the FAQ page, and the blog posts that interest you.

    Thanks for your irenic, constructive criticism; iron sharpens iron.

    Semper Potentator!

  64. D.M. Zuniga says:

    Semper Potentator! is Latin for “Always sovereign!” — and this is what We The People have always been, since ratification of the current U.S. Constitution.

    However, We The People are sovereign *only collectively*, not as individuals. In America, individuals can enjoy economic ‘sovereignty’ but our system does not condone individual sovereign citizens over our servant governments. For instance, a gathered assembly of citizens such as ad hoc neighborhood watch groups, vigilante committees, or even self-styled citizen militias — has no legal sovereignty or sanction for law enforcement action, under the U.S. Constitution. It does not establish a system of vigilante justice, even when the city, county, state, or federal servant violates the laws and becomes tyrannical.

    In most of their public writing on the subject over 40 years, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the States are sovereign over the limited federal servant — and We The People (collectively, through proper channels) are sovereign over both State and federal servant governments. Given the relatively new court systems, both of these founding fathers assumed that We The People would operate through our States to “judge of the infractions, and apply remedies” whenever the federal government slipped “the chains of the Constitution”, as Jefferson put it. Obviously, We The People have been asleep at our top sovereign’s post for at least six generations.

    In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton — always a staunch federalist (supporter of central government) — ironically goes even further than Jefferson and Madison on the subject of the sovereign power of We The People. In that piece (as we quote in the AmericaAgain! Declaration), Hamilton suggests that the People are always the last word and the highest authority when government violates its mandate.

    When the State government becomes tyrannical, We The People utilize the federal government to team up and put it back in its place. When the federal servant becomes tyrannical, We The People use the State government to overpower the other servant. In either case, Hamilton suggests in his warranty language, We The People “preponderate”. We rule.

    But we must operate using the established legislatures, executive branches, and in the case of AmericaAgain!, the criminal courts of our States — to stop federal criminals. We don’t just make up a posse and take law into our own hands; that leads to anarchy, and in our day with the number of arms in the hands of all kinds of Americans — some who have absolutely zero training; others who have absolutely zero morals — that would make things much worse, and ironically invite the very Police State we all seek to avoid.


  65. D.M. Zuniga says:

    Laura, “the America I describe” is merely the republic stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, by enforcing that supreme law against those in Congress who violate it, after taking an oath to support it. I can’t imagine what you don’t like about that, but you’re welcome not to like it, of course; you’re in good company with Obama, Congress, and half of the elected state officials in this republic.

    If you’re referring to our proposed legislation to outlaw the murder of the most defenseless Americans, and codifying the legal concept of ‘marriage’ as Western civilization has done for thousands of years — one man and one woman — you’re welcome to your minority opinion. Those who push infanticide and sexual perversion have been ruthless and bold in their onslaught, for an entire generation now. I don’t want to live in that hellish America.

    So, you’re more than welcome not to like my conception of America; basically, the conception held by most Americans from 1607 until about 1950. But Congress perpetrating multi-trillion-dollar crime is not a matter of opinion. AmericaAgain! hopes to have the American people do, on a regular basis (like jury duty) basically what the barons did to King John in 1215 A.D. in the Runnymede Valley, when they had him execute the Magna Charta.

    The deal offered to King John was, obey this law or pay the price. No king had ever bothered about obeying laws before; “Rex Lex” meant “the king is the law”, and the “divine right of kings” extended as far as any monarch desired, since time-out-of-mind. Kings (and their operatives down the line) could do as they pleased, however immoral or ruthless.

    After King John placed his seal on Magna Charta, the direction of Western law and government changed fundamentally. From that time on, the legal norm became “Lex Rex” — the law is king. Even kings had to obey laws, and nowhere was the principle of rule of law so deeply embedded in a civilization as here in America under the new U.S. Constitution. At least in theory.

  66. D.M. Zuniga,

    I am just so grateful for your permission to have my own beliefs.
    “The majority of Americans was once Christian; most still profess Christianity at least in name. The melting-pot culture that made America the envy of the world was not theocracy, but was demonstrably the ethic of Christ, not of Mormonism, Judaism, or Islam.”

    You are wrong. Our country was based on the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Christianity is not mentioned anywhere in the founding documents of our country. This country is a moral and just country based on principles that were around long before Christ. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to be a nation of Christians, they would have incorporated that into our Constitution. They didn’t, though, did they? In fact they specifically prohibited Congress from passing laws establishing a national religion and those which prohibited the free exercise of religion.


    “Inalienable Right to Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing:

    Section 1. The inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence, and the word ‘person’ as used in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, apply to all human beings at every stage of biological development, irrespective of age, health, or condition of dependency.

    Section 2. Neither Congress nor the States shall provide for or allow the taking of a human life except in conformance with law permitting an abortion when a reasonable medical certainty exists that continuation of pregnancy will cause the death of the mother, and requiring that every reasonable effort be made in keeping with good medical practice, to preserve the life of the child.”



    “Enact the United States Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, proposed various times in Congress from 2003 to 2008, providing:

    Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

    There is no Constitutional authority for this. Marriage is a religious covenant, neither the state nor the federal government should have any involvement in a religious rite. Marriage is the province of religion.


    “Enact legislation outlawing religious laws or pronouncements in favor of Islamic religion, the State of Israel, or other foreign interests operating on U.S. soil, providing as follows…”

    Any law based on religious teachings is unconstitutional. That means no laws based on the Bible or Christianity.


    “We seek no theocracy; only to state for the record that America was founded a Christian – not Atheist, Jewish, Muslim, or Mormon – commonwealth. Although some of the founding fathers were not orthodox Christians, the vast majority was; and a survey of America’s original colonial documents of government, law, economics, and social life proves that America is founded on Christianity and no other belief system. Not all beliefs produce equally efficacious or humane law, ethics, economics, or social practices.”

    Once again you’re wrong. Nature’s Law, morality, and justice – not Christianity. If our country was intended to be a Christian nation it would have been enshrined in the Constitution.

    It is only your opinion that being gay is a sexual perversion – once again, based on the teachings of a religious text.

    Minority? Our Constitution protects the minority – we aren’t a democracy where majority rules. If we were a democracy, then I’d worry about being in the minority. Doing what’s right is not always popular – I can handle being in the minority.

    P.S. You are against laws favoring islam, but laws favoring Christianity or its teachings is perfectly fine with you. Hypocrite!

  67. Mark says:

    Another concept for most Americans for the period 1607 – 1950 was slavery – hankering for the good old days?

    Magna Carta – the birth document for the basis of constitutional democratic government. Interesting as Americans have twice voted for your current administration. The majority of Americans want to move to the future not live in the glow of an rose tinted past.

  68. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    I agreed with you 1 hundred percent, dont know how any true A merican conservative patriot could not agree to that. But hey to each his or her own. You see most here probably did not live back in the 50’s and have no idea how this country has really changed, even from the 60’s totally different country. I have no desire ( as the liberal pig propaganda tries to claim to go back to slavery) I do however want to go back to freedom and personal responsibility, and way way way smaller and less intrusive government.
    And to the time when minority opinions did not steer the course of this country, and activist judicial judges were not allowed to do what they are being allowed to do now.

  69. Thom says:

    Mark>> forever the envious scumbag.

  70. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Hey Mark you just an ignorant pig who has nothing to do with his pathetic life but run your mouth about things you have no idea to stir up the pot! Is media matters or georgie boy paying you to go from blog to blog to spew your BS, Im betting so. Nobody here wants to go back to slavery or anything like it, thats just a talking point scare tactic used by the left to get votes, but then u know that or maybe u really are that stupid and believe it.

  71. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    And on top of that Mark the only reason the uncle muhammed got voted in to office in the first place was , his true history and what he was was covered up by the media, he lied through his teeth about everything nobody vetted that, and because of the constant media lies the brainwashed sheeple of America voted for him twice. Because they think he gonna give em candy canes and gum drops, and whatever else their lil hearts desire. They are in for rude awakening at some point in the near future, if and when they ever open their eyes from the dream they are in. This guy has nothing on his agenda but the destruction of this country, thats his personal jihad. Thats why the continues to cover up everything the muslim pigs do, hes their plant in high places along with half his staff and cabinet. And here we stand or sit disputing our gun rights, when we should be picking up our guns and marching on Washington, not waiting for them to come to us. And set this government back to the way it was meant to be. And then when we do that maybe we should come over and kick the english asses again just for good measure, 8)

  72. D.M. Zuniga says:


    “If our country was intended to be a Christian nation it would have been enshrined in our Constitution”. That’s preposterous; in the first place, contrary to the word in the fascist/nationalist ‘Bellamy Pledge’ that said “one nation, indivisible”, America was never intended to be a ‘nation’ at all. Read the Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 4); since 1789 it has been a REPUBLIC, by law. Huge difference; that’s why each State has its own constitution, government, system of taxation, and unique social mores and traditions — especially Texas (we were once an autonomous Republic ourselves).

    In the second place, enshrining Christianity in the present Constitution, 182 years after first English colonization in America, would not have been dispositive — it was already Christian. Either Protestant or Roman Catholic, from coast to coast. I was born in Laredo, Texas; founded by Spain in 1755; totally (Roman Catholic) Christian. I now live fairly close to San Antonio, Texas; founded by Spain in 1719, totally (Roman Catholic) Christian. To suggest that any part of America’s system of law, economics, society, etc was predicated on atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al — or based on no belief system at all — is just preposterous.

    The documents of early American history are clear and unambiguous; for over 300 years this was a demonstrably Christian civilization. While it’s true that about half of America, geographically speaking, was first settled by the Spanish crown and perhaps 10%, geographically, by the French crown (both Roman Catholic), the Protestant norms and systems of law, economics, and family life established by the English settlers, prevailed.

    In Mexico and in Central and South America, the Spanish system (Roman Catholicism) predominated, shaping all of those same systems — as it did in many other places before (Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Poland, et al). Increasingly after the 8th or 9th century, the belief system of ‘Mohammed’ ruled many parts of the earth. The resulting systems of law, economics, customs and culture are everywhere evident.

    These are just facts of history; ideas have consequences. As I said, you’re welcome to think what you like about facts of history; it doesn’t change those facts. I wasn’t “giving you permission”; I was conceding the reality of a free country. You should, too.

    If you read the proposed legislation in the AmericaAgain! Declaration, it only proposes that it be illegal for any person or organization to foment (foreign or domestic) war on behalf of Islam or the State of Israel. I do not mean merely speaking about making war, but actually enabling it. That is just plain self-preservation, madam. If you don’t believe in treason laws, you’re in good company. Even though you are in the minority belief system, you are in the majority with respect to political correctness.

    So, perhaps your tender sensibilities will be assuaged when Islamic Jihad engulfs America as it has much of the world, especially Europe and Africa; and when sexual deviancy has its way in everything, as it did in senescent Greece and Rome.

    I say no; they will not have America; you say yes, they shall have free reign. History will definitely grant one of us our wish.

    www. AmericaAgainNow.com

  73. Mark says:


    The point is that DMZ argues for a Christian fundamentalist state and points to this period as if it were a beacon of the “good life”.

    In the same way that you argue against all the things that Obama is doing but don’t point to any of the errors committed by Bush(es).

    A rose tinted view taints both your arguments

  74. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Actually it was enshrined on every building, edifice, money and documents that the founding fathers built or made. And the constitution does state it when its there to protect our God given rights. Its in every freaking speech they gave, it was hung on the walls in all the houses of justice. Man you would have to be deaf , dumb, or blind to make a statement like that. YOU JUST LOST MY SUPPORT. and Im afraid most conservative christians will feel the same, we are already fighting an unGodly governemnt , we don’t want another one with different clothes.

  75. D.M. Zuniga,

    You’re confused.

    1. Republic denotes our system of government – as opposed to democracy, theocracy, monarchy, dictatorship. ‘A nation of laws, not men’ – John Adams described us as a nation, I think it’s ok for me to use that word also.

    2. There is a big difference between saying we are a Christian nation (yep, I’m using that word again) and saying the major religion in our country is Christianity. The United States is not a country based on the teachings of any specific religion.

    “To suggest that any part of America’s system of law, economics, society, etc was predicated on atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al — or based on no belief system at all — is just preposterous.”

    I did not suggest that at all. I’ll say this again since you seemed to have skipped right over it in my previous comment. Our laws are based on the Laws of Nature. Those laws have been around for much longer than Christianity. Laws that are based on the teachings of any religion or religious text are unconstitutional.

    You do not know me, do not make assumptions about what I believe. I follow the Constitution exclusively and our Constitution does not mention marriage, gays, or Christianity.

  76. Mark says:


    Such an eloquent argument finished off in true American style “And then when we do that maybe we should come over and kick the english asses again just for good measure” Violence is the great problem solver. Invading foreign countries. etc etc.

  77. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Hey dumbass Bush hasnt been running the country for a few years now if you havent noticed, and Bush is and was a Saint next to uncle muhammed and his crew. Also like usual the only facts you have are the left wing propoganda spewing media, that cried bush lied for years, when they told more lies in one night about him and every other conservative than hes probably told his whole life. And on top of that his so called lie was based on intel aquired form you limey’s lmao. If in fact you really are British, the blame Bush crap is really wearing thin. And do you think I care what an athiest has to say about anything to do with christianity, um no because u have no clue about it??

  78. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    I have to go to work now Mark to pay the government my money to waste, and hopefully make a few dollors to support my family. you enjoy sitting around in your jammies doing what you do with your pathetic lil life. K cya

  79. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Hey when someone pushes to hard for too long thats the only answer bud ! and if you think I care in the least that you dont like it, think again! people who push and run their mouths usually dont like the end result.

  80. 7delta says:

    Laura said: Once again you’re wrong. Nature’s Law, morality, and justice – not Christianity. If our country was intended to be a Christian nation it would have been enshrined in the Constitution.

    Laura, have read any of the treatises on Natural Law/Laws of Nature? There are many to choose from and can be read or downloaded online. The older the better, since they were the most prevalent influences on the founding generation. As you noted, the philosophy has been around for quite some time.

    While it’s true that the basic concepts are found in most cultures, in some form, that it’s wrong to lie, cheat or steal, it’s wrong to commit murder, that the property of others should be respected, to always keep your word, and to afford respect to your parents and to your deity, Natural Law places the conceptualization of those universal laws at creation, as instituted by the Creator and as woven into nature so that man recognizes them. This philosophy, we and the founders refer to as Natural Law, came from Christianity and is based on man’s sovereignty as a creation of God, born with free will, with certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights and blessings…and yeah, the 10 Commandments too, as a basic guideline, which is why the 10 Commandments were and are often found in courthouses across the country, including SCOTUS. We can even find the stair-step concept of local governance up to a centralized government that has little to do except for the ‘big stuff’ in the book of Exodus. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, instructed him about using this system. This concept is often called Jethrian Law.

    The founders’ concepts of a Republic were heavily influenced by Roman Law before Rome lost their Republic to ignorance and tyranny and by the Greek Republics. Rome occupied most of Great Britain (Lord love the Scots for being ornery) for around 400 years. For a while, GB retained a system closer to the one envisioned by the founders. Then, GB and the church got into bed, went all feudal, and from that debacle we got the 1st Amendment. It binds the central government from interfering in religion and ‘the free exercise thereof’ and from establishing a state religion. It did not prohibit the government or citizens from their free exercise thereof, nor prohibit the government from participating in religious exercises, nor restrict them from encouraging people to participate in their chosen beliefs. If someone didn’t have a faith position…fine. Government could not force them to have one, support one or participate in one.

    During the construction of Washington, DC, church services were held in the Capitol Building, the War Department and the Treasury. Nine different denominations, if I remember correctly. And if I’m not mistaken, church services continued to be held in the Capitol until the 1950’s. Since the colonies were prohibited by GB from printing Bibles, one the first official printings ordered by Congress was the Bible for the purpose of distribution to school children. A few times, they even gave money to missionaries of different denominations to establish schools and religious instructions among the Indians and in wilderness areas.

    Two of probably the least religious of the founders, Jefferson and Franklin, were still men of faith and by today’s standards would be thought fundamentalists. Franklin stated that if man was as bad as he was with religion, could we imagine what he would be like without it? He was very supportive of Christianity and clear about his belief in God’s governance in the affairs of men, but very private about his personal beliefs. Jefferson did indeed promote religious instruction and attended those church services in the Capitol every Sunday while he was president. Later in life, he explored different interpretations of the Bible, especially concerning the deity of Jesus, but he maintained that the life of Christ was the most worthy of imitation. Thirty-nine of the 55 signers of the Declaration of the Independence were seminary graduates. The first Great Seal design was rendered by Franklin, Jefferson and Adams. It was of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. The motto was: Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. It was not approved by Congress, nor was the second proposal. However, the third one was approved and is the one we have today. It was designed by Charles Thomson, a theologian, Secretary to the Congress of the United States, and author of the first American Greek to English translation of the Bible. It’s still in print today: The Thomson Bible.

    Until SCOTUS in the 1960’s, for the first and only time I’m aware of, took a phrase–separation of church and state–from a private letter–not intent of the law–and reinterpreted it to make public policy, individuals and communities were perfectly capable of deciding when, where and how they prayed or exercised their religious expression…or to not. We have never had a Christian fundamentalist state, nor was one intended, but we did have a Christian world view and yes, a Constitution based in Judeo-Christian values (Natural Law with shades of overlapping of the same philosophy from English Law) and a country built on those values.

    So you’re right that the Constitution does not mention abortion, gays, marriage or Christianity (though the DOI references the Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World and their firm reliance on Divine Providence). However, after reading volumes of the founders’ writings and pertinent documents, I think it’s a safe bet they would be horrified by the current trends. I can hear all but hear the responses of many of them in my head that I’ve gotten to know through their public and private writings. None of these issues were even thinkable in their time and if they had been, they would have had to have been completely different men with morals and principles foreign to who they were to have not been mortified by such suggestions. From the personalities of the men I’ve gotten to know, they would have seen these issues as acts in defiance of the Laws of Nature and marriage as a church function, with, perhaps, a caveat for civil services, but certainly not a government function. So with that said, they would also acknowledge that under the Constitution, as it was ratified, that the federal government has no authority whatsoever in any of those issues. If there is a say to be had, it belongs to the states and to the people.

    I know, I know…we’ll hear about the slavery issue now, but that has also been misrepresented. No one ever mentions anymore that while in the Virginia House of Burgess, Jefferson tried three times to end slavery and there was a serious effort mounted during the Convention to end it. A compromise was struck and it was suppose to end. Eli Whitney threw a monkey wrench into the works by inventing the cotton gin, which revived slavery long after the founders were gone. Human failings won the day again.

    Far too much of our history has been scrubbed and what’s left has been subverted into tales from the dark side by agenda-driven faux historians. Read, read, read–which I know you do. Let them tell you who they were, what their influences were and what they believed. Read their influences. The Bible was one of the major ones. The churches also played a large role in the Revolution. The British were so unhappy about the Black Robes, they targeted them and burned churches for their treachery. The ministers were simply preaching God’s Law–Natural Law–and man’s unalienable right to be free.

    Don’t feel bad. I didn’t quite get the connections either until I started reading old books on Natural Law.

  81. D.M. Zuniga says:

    “7delta”, thank you for your erudite, accurate, comprehensive response to Laura’s mischaracterization of America’s founding ethos. I could not have done nearly as well, but also had no inclination to go there, the historical record being replete with examples of the foundational nature of Christianity on American thought until the 20th century or so.

  82. 7delta says:

    Thanks, D.M. Laura is a smart cookie and is very well read. I understand where she’s coming from, since I think I must have taken a similar route as she in trying to figure out this mess and by going back to the original sources to do so. There is so much material to cover, it takes a while to bird dog your way through a good smattering of relevant subjects. I’ve been at this for years, but still feel I’ve barely scratched the surface. Jefferson alone wrote over 9000 letters. Add in the everyone else’s, many of whom, like Jefferson, weren’t even at the convention, but were important figures, plus the philosophies of influence, the relevant histories and law, and it would take nearly a lifetime, I think, to read everything.

    I thought I grasped Natural Law, at least fundamentally, until I started looking for old books and documents to read for further understanding. As I looked at the titles my searches brought up, my first thought was, “What’s all this religious stuff?” Duh. As I began to read, it didn’t take long for it to click…Nature’s God…the Creator, Divine Providence…the terminology of the founders was often taken straight from some of these sources. Natural Law is God’s Law and to them, as well as to the philosophy itself, God was the Biblical God.

    I admit I was slightly surprised by some of the sources and influences we hear or read about all the time who were serious students of Nature’s Law, but that fact, like many others, has been omitted when looking at their work or influence. It’s not PC, I guess, to explore the religious nature of influences on them and their influence on the founding generation. But when I recognized the specific influences that have been left out over the last 50-60 years, as well as the distorted history we’ve been fed, then connected the dots of the evolving narratives over that same time period, something very important became self-evident. There has been and continues to be a deliberateness in omitting inconvenient truths and in changing public perception by altering history.

    I have come to realize that the biggest threat to those who would fundamentally change America is Christianity–the conceptualization and origin of Natural Law itself. It’s very simple. You cannot control independent people. You cannot control a people of faith who rely on the God of Nature for guidance and sustenance and who adhere to higher principles and morals of the Law of Nature. That would include people who may not be Christian or have any belief in a God, if they accept that their rights are not given by the government, but are theirs by birthright from nature and are their responsibility to care for and defend. The fact that you don’t have to embrace Christianity to embrace the philosophy of Natural Law makes it even more imperative that all influences and sources must be eliminated. A principled independent people will not allow a government of lies and deceit to exist. When the people find out the truth and the depth of the deceit, the gig will be up. That’s why it’s been covered up and dressed up in shiny narratives of progress by politicians and media until very recently. The groundwork has been laid for half a century for this day.

    Revolution isn’t always a physical assault on a land and its people. As Lincoln said, no invading army would make it past the Ohio River, so the radicals, agents of various foreign influences with similar goals, took another route: change the people’s perceptions through institutionalized lies and deceit. As long as the God of Nature and the Laws of Nature held sway, they couldn’t make any headway. Morals, principles and religion had to be removed. So this they have done and have championed their deceit under the faux banner of being Constitutional, all the while changing the original intent, redefining words and eliminating their most potent foe with the attrition warfare of political correctness.

    Screw them. I don’t care if someone believes in God or not, as the source of their morals and principles. As Laura pointed out, the Laws of Nature aren’t radical or unique to just this country, even if the original concept sprang from Christianity. I care greatly, however, that the lies and deceit are exposed. I resent a bunch a silly little play-revolutionaries who have Pinky and the Brain syndrome running around crying over their hurt feelings and their non-existent ‘right’ to rule the world. While they believe they can remake the world in their own image, I know for a fact, there is no image of their own to reflect back. They are barking up the wrong tree. By the time they realize it, they will be standing against a wall with the smoke of a round fired by the very people they put in power wafting upward on the winds of change they believed in. Whether they believe it or not, I’m trying to save their miserable lives, as well as the life of this Republic; the very Republic that gave them the freedom to be stupid.

    Use liberty wisely and with responsibility or you get a where we and the rest of the world are today. No more lies.

  83. D.M. Zuniga says:

    D’accord once more, “7delta”.

    If you read our FAQ page at AmericaAgainNow.com (when you can make the time, reading the AmericaAgain! Declaration will be even better), I think you’ll find some promise in it.

    In terms of political economy, we track with Jefferson and Madison; their “Principles of ’98” and pretty much everything they wrote — except in their *worst* years, when they both served as president (!). Both men hewed closer to the Constitution before and after their eight years in the White House. Are you familiar with the 3-volume book set called “The Republic of Letters”, by Norton Press? That compendium of 40 years of correspondence between those two best friends and giants of America’s founding, are some of the best reading I’ve ever done. You learn so much about the two men — Madison may be grudgingly labeled the “father of the Constitution” by historians, but he’s terribly underrated, for exactly the obfuscative motives you cite.

    Meanwhile, I believe that Jefferson can be said to be somewhat overrated; many of the points of political economy and philosophy that Jefferson loudly articulated, appear to have originated with his younger, diminutive best friend, whose Montpelier plantation was only about 25 miles from Jefferson’s Monticello.

    Ironically, the tactical trigger underlying the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine(TM) comes directly from the pen of that snake-in-the-grass, Alex Hamilton, in the 28th Federalist.

    If you’d like a free PDF copy of my book, I’d be happy to send it along if you send me a private message. I like your mind, very much.

    Linda, that offer goes to you as well. I mentioned in a comment above that I like what I see so far on the website for your new political party. Not to dissuade you from your mission, but I had to comment that “the fix is in” with the two-party electoral politics industry. In Chapter 9 of my book, I explain why this must remain the case, else the entire edifice collapses. A third party will simply never be allowed on the field.

    We can all take some comfort in what Davidson and Rees-Mogg labeled ‘The Sovereign Individual’ in their eponymous book 14 years ago: traditional nation-states are on the way out, at least as today’s bureaucratic colossus. The smart money and the best minds are expatriating (literally or at least virtually) from overbearing, prehensile countries. Social media is replacing electoral politics; it moves faster, digs deeper, and is not easily demagogued into line.

    I believe that the finest hour is still ahead, for the U.S. Constitution and this heterogeneous republic of blessed and sovereign States.

  84. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Read world history, the religious freedom they wanted was from a government that controlled the people through the church or vice versa{ aka the roman catholic church) it told them how they had to worship when they had to worship and used the government to inforce it, and the government used the church to enslave the people. Ok so now we are not talking about the same freedom from religion. the want no such thing they embraced religion for the sole fact that they all were devout christians and understood that cathosism was an apostate one, and had been used for nothing more than governmental control for centuries.

  85. D.M. Zuniga says:

    Anonymous googley one, I agree with that post entirely. You have solid Christian sense, a good grasp of basic principles on which America was founded, and also show great common sense. If you would work on your spelling, punctuation, and grammar instead of disparaging anyone with human intellect (which distinguishes humans from beasts), your message would be much more compelling.

    As an engineer for 30+ years, and a general and subcontractor for just as long, I also agree with your humorous, accurate assessment of engineers in many cases (not all) when common sense ‘constructability’ issues arise on a project. The theoretical sometimes harmonizes well with the practical; but when it doesn’t, the practical man gets the job done. Meanwhile, the prima donna architect, engineer, or inventor walks away fuming because his artistic vision, design, or theory wasn’t followed in the field or shop. But the job got done, and that’s the point.

    If you weren’t such a pansy by hiding behind a pseudonym — and if you’d learn to spell and punctuate — you’d be a compelling blogger. But even in your Googly-suit, torturing the language, you are a Triton of minnows, with solid common sense.

  86. Thom says:

    Pansy? Wah-hahaha. If nothing else, MoogleY’s response , if he has one, will definitely be interesting. ” My way of thinking is ” its my comment and I’ll spell the words any damn way I want to”

    My word of TIP to MoogleY, or anyone who is interested, is : Any time you see a red line under a word, just right click on it for the correct spelling. Easy as pie. Thats good ole American Apple pie!! Wah-hahaha

  87. D.M. Zuniga says:

    Yes, pansy.

    Shaniquah ‘Nancy’ Jones is the real name of the young lady posting as “Great GooglyMoogly”. She is a very conflicted 13 year old Black girl, with serious issues. For instance, she despises anyone who can spell correctly. Even though the service is a free pop-up on every browser, Shaniquah is too lazy. She has watched Momma collect those welfare, food stamp, and unemployment handouts for too long.

    Using normal grammar and syntax is somewhat tougher for Shaniquah; she’ll actually have to study and practice a little — what she has refused to do so far, through 5th grade. She can beat this thing, but again — I think she’s just too lazy.

    An atheist who online pretends to be a Christian, Shaniquah posts gratuitously ugly jibes at almost everyone on every thread she visits. This has the effect that atheists desire; it makes Christians appear as bomb-throwing, illiterate imbeciles.

    Shaniquah ‘Nancy’ Jones, oh you “Great GooglyBooglyWooglyMoogly” — you are busted!

  88. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Hey zagumba in my younger days if we had met, and you called me a panzy you would be spitting teeth before you got it out good, but Im a christian now and would not use violence, unless of course you attacked me then id just shoot ur dunbass. Names will never hurt me sonny, if they did this black 13 year old girl would wipe the floor with ur face, after i ripped it off of your skull, hows that for syntax???

  89. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    It’s the Soldier, not the reporter
    Who has given us the freedom of the press.
    It’s the Soldier, not the poet,
    Who has given us the freedom of speech.
    It’s the Soldier, not the politicians
    That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..
    It’s the Soldier who salutes the flag,
    Who serves beneath the flag,
    And whose coffin is draped by the flag.
    And we all know that reporters, poets, politicians, journalist and bloggers all consider themselves intellectuals. But as I said b4 the people who get the s__t done are the boots on the ground, not the intellectuals.

  90. Rob Price says:

    As a soldier, “does his refusal to obey an order that goes against his Christian beliefs, make him an enemy of the State?”. Does a soldier’s belief in the U.S. Constitution, as originally set up, limit him is his service to his country, if his religious beliefs run contrary to it?

  91. Thom says:

    no/yes. God gave most of us a brain so as we could make our own decisions about right and wrong. “Dumb questions”

  92. 7delta says:

    As a soldier, “does his refusal to obey an order that goes against his Christian beliefs, Rob asked; make him an enemy of the State?”. Does a soldier’s belief in the U.S. Constitution, as originally set up, limit him is his service to his country, if his religious beliefs run contrary to it?

    What does the UCMJ say?

  93. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    Ok you who are supposed to be so smart, we take an oath if we have reservations about taking it then we should not take it, but once we take it we adhere to it, no matter what. Thats why its called an oath! And if your a christian you should have no trouble upholdng the constitution since it was based on christian principles, not roman cathoilic, not methodist, yada yada yada yada, but the belief God and his principles. Freedom of choice being one of them!

  94. Rob Price says:

    if an order is given runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution, where does the UCMJ stand on disobeying a superior officer’s order? I am asking for your insight because it is something that was brought up at a meeting I recently had and I wasn’t sure how to answer it. Thanks!

  95. Rob Price says:

    I haven’t read or even seen the UCMJ since 2000. As you know, it’s not something you can pick up at the local book store.

  96. GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

    The oath is to the constitution if you meant the oath when u took it and your man of your word, then there is no question, u disobey at all cost!

  97. 7delta says:

    Rob said: if an order is given runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution, where does the UCMJ stand on disobeying a superior officer’s order?

    To my knowledge, the UCMJ hasn’t changed regarding this issue. It would be unlawful for them to alter the responsibilities of the oath in regards to the Constitution. Moogley is right that oaths are to the Constitution, not to superior officers or to the Commander in Chief. Enlisted service members, as part of their oath, swear to obey the orders of their superior officers and the CiC’s, but that comes secondary to swearing to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Officers swear only to protect and defend the Constitution.

    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no conflicting law, treaty or order, regardless of who issues it or makes it into law or regulation, can supercede the Constitution or its protections. All military members not only have the right to refuse an unconstitutional order, they have the duty to stand down. Traditionally, the military tries to stay non-political and allow Congress or the courts time to correct unconstitutional laws, etc. but in an emergency situation, when there is no time to defer to the legislative or judicial branch, they have to make the decision themselves.

    There was a time, I’m told, that the military taught the Constitution to service members, but since at least Clinton, maybe longer, they have ceased to do this. It’s rarely taught properly in school anymore, so it’s become incumbent on the individual service member to learn what it means from legitimate sources. Fortunately, most of our military is loyal, but the finer points of the Bill of Rights, etc. may be lost on some of the younger members. Older guys know better. Let’s hope they’re good teachers and will be good leaders if and when such a decision must be made. Let’s also hope that once an unconstitutional order leaves the mouth or pen of somebody up-chain, it won’t make it down past the first tier under the level the order was issued.

    Disobeying an order is always a risk, so it’s not to be taken lightly. It’s imperative that anybody who refuses an order is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in the right. It helps too, if more than one person refuses an illegitimate order. The more the merrier, but it usually takes, I would think, one brave, Constitutionally educated person to take the first step forward.

    Oath Keepers’ mission is to educate our military about the Constitution and to inspire them to stand down should they be faced with such a decision. Needless to say, the progressive left hates them and makes up some wild tales about them. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most creative in their fictional accounts of people’s motivations, such as Oath Keepers…like SPLC has room to talk. Sometime when you have a chance, look up their history and Morris Dees’ entrance into the race industry. I wouldn’t believe them if they said the sky was blue, which I’m sure would be evidence to them that I’m a hater and a racist. SPLC is pathetic and if people knew the truth about this bunch, there would be For Sale signs all over the lawn of the Poverty Palace.

    Not sure how I got off on SPLC, but I hate to miss any opportunity to offer them the discredit they deserve.

    Anyhow, I bet you can find the UCMJ online somewhere.

  98. Rob Price says:

    I am having my brother-in-law send me a complete copy of the UCMJ. He is the Command Sergeant Major of Fort Gordon, Georgia. When I entered the Army in ’77 we were taught the UCMJ and in the way it worked. My son, who enlisted in the ’90’s, says the only time the UCMJ is mentioned or brought up now is when a soldier violates some part of it. How things have changed. thanks for your help and clarification-much appreciated!

  99. Ian MacLeod says:

    ” You are protected by our constitution.”

    Unfortunately it’s not likely to work well against the brainwashed US military, or a U.N. military who could care less. Anyway, back in the early 70’s when I was in boot camp, we were just told that we could refuse an illegal order,
    “… BUT – you’d better be damned sure you’re right!” Timing can have a lot to do with it too. For instance, in the middle of a fire fight might not be the best time to decide to argue with your superior…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s