H.R. 748: Is Obama’s Civilian Securty Force coming to a neighborhood near you?

H.R.748 – To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or as civilian service in a Federal, State, or local government program or with a community-based agency or community-based entity, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to provide for the registration of women under the Military Selective Service Act, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES!.

Sponsor: Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-13] (Introduced 02/15/2013)
Latest Action: 02/15/2013 Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Source: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/748/actions

Rangel was found guilty of 11 ethic violations that would have landed a normal citizen in Federal Prison. According to section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), it is a federal crime for anyone to willfully attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes. A conviction for tax evasion can carry with it up to a five-year prison sentence and/or fines up to $100,000. It would seem that the same laws do not apply to good time Charlie!  Charlie Rangle was Censured!

In the House of Representatives, censure is essentially a form of public humiliation carried out on the House floor. As the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives reads out a resolution rebuking the member for the specified misconduct, the member must stand in the House well and listen to it. This process has been described as a morality play in miniature.

In the history of the House, censure has been used 23 times, and most of the cases arose during the 19th century. In the modern history of the United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (since 1966), censure has been used five times, most recently against Charles B. Rangel.

The censure was not so humiliating for Rangel that it has stopped him from trying, through Legislative active, to socially engineer the moral conduct of our young people by giving them a choice – be drafted or join a Civilian Youth Corp.He also wants his bill to be so encompassing that the draft can be used for military selective service AND OTHER as yet undefined PURPOSES.

Rangel has a history of trying to re-institute the draft but this latest bill sounds like he is trying to help Obama achieve his campaign goal of a Civilian Security force that is just as powerful and just as well-funded as our Military Forces.  That force has been a subject of concern by many Americans.

Watch Video Here:  http://youtu.be/Tt2yGzHfy7s

In 1973, at the end of the Vietnam War, Congress abolished the draft in favor of an all-volunteer Army (AVA).  A common complaint at the time was that the draft unfairly targeted minorities.  Today the same criticism is launched at the all-volunteer Army because its ranks of minorities are disproportionate to the general population.

The expansion of the government interference into the daily lives of Americans has reached an all-time high that is even trying to regulate those areas that were solely left to the realm of Charity.  It is one thing to proclaim that we have a social responsibility towards the care of others, it is quite another thing to mandate it.  This then ceases to be Charity since the individual is not acting by their own inner compulsion.  Millions of Americans engage in volunteer acts in their community without government interference every year.

Obama’s Civilian Security Force is something very different and beckons back to the Hitler Youth of Nazi’s rise in Germany.  The Hitler Youth Camps became indoctrination centers where children were encouraged to out anyone, including their parents, if they so much as complained about the new Government,  Speaking of Indoctrination, in spite of the lamestream media’s attempts to tell us that Nazi’s weren’t Socialists the term NAZI was coined from their own description of the Party; Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party)

The Hitler Youth had been created in the 1920’s. By 1933 its membership stood at 100,000. After Hitler came to power, all other youth movements were abolished and as a result the Hitler Youth grew quickly. In 1936, the figure stood at 4 million members. In 1936, it became all but compulsory to join the Hitler Youth.

There were separate organizations for boys and girls. 

Boys joined the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) until the age of 18. In 1936, the writer J R Tunus wrote about the activities of the Hitler Jugend. He stated that part of their “military athletics” (Wehrsport) included marching, bayonet drill, grenade throwing, trench digging, map reading, gas defence, use of dugouts, how to get under barbed wire and pistol shooting.

Girls joined the Bund Deutscher Madel (League of German Girls).  A popular poster for the movement showed a young girl with the words “Every girl belongs to us” inscribed on the poster.

The Hitler Youth Movement was originally overseen by Baldur Benedikt von Schirach.  In 1940 he organized the evacuation of 5 million children from cities threatened by Allied bombing. Later that year, he joined the army and volunteered for service in France, where he was awarded the Iron Cross before being recalled. Schirach turned control of the Hitler Youth to Artur Axmann, and was appointed Governor (“Gauleiter” or “Reichsstatthalter”) of the Reichsgau Vienna, a post in which he remained until the end of the war. During that time Schirach was responsible for sending Jews from Vienna to German death camps. During his tenure 65,000 Jews were deported from Vienna to Poland, and in a speech on 15 September 1942 he mentioned their deportation as a “contribution to European culture.”

There are many Americans today, just as there was Germans before the rise of Nazis and the Hitler Youth movement, who say that something like this could never happen, not here.  Unfortunately when we fail to learn lessons from history we become ripe for a repeat of the same course of action.  Many Americans are in sad need of a refresher course in History, not the modernist revisionist history that has permeated out public schools but actual history.

Those who repeat the mantra that it can’t happen here, not in America.  Take a moment and consider that National News Broadcasters have boasted on television that they are, in fact, Socialists. Socialism is a system of economics that is alien to free-market capitalism, the institution of economics instituted at the origin of our government.  As America moves more towards Socialism we move further away from truly American Principles of Government.  This shift is a direct result of the modern revisionists reinterpretation of history that has worked to indoctrinate America into to a system where it’s all about the economy while avoiding the importance of the protection of Private Property Rights.

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as few real differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned (as in owned and regulated by the State) in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed is different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs.

Take a moment and listen to what these socialist commentators are advocating for as they help advance Obama’s class warfare rhetoric.  Is it redistribution allotted to his or her input or is is it redistribution according to his or her needs?  Socialism recognizes Private Property, but embraces that all industry must be owned by the Community or State.  Communism rejects all rights to private property where evertyhing, including you, is the property of the State.  Institutionalized Communism is the extreme wing of Socialism.

Hitler and other Socialists before him understood that humans are instilled with certain rights that they will fight to preserve.  They also understood that the only real way to change this was through a system of indoctrination to quite literally brainwash the people to reject this concept and they knew it had to start when they were still children.  For adults, fear had to be instilled with the direct consequences of worst kind. to any who opposed the new National Socialist order.

This can only be accomplished by removing their ability to defend themself and to make it possible for a government to detain its citizens through unlimited detention without due process.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition.

The 1938 German Weapons Act superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year. Government workers, and National Socialist German Workers Party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions.  A legal distinction was made between guns for sport and guns for self-defense.  On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons because the Jews were seen as antagonistic to the National Interest and Security of Germany. This regulation effectively deprived Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Does any of this sound familiar to the modern rhetoric being used by this administration to further regulate firearm use?  Do you still think the Civilian Security Force can’t happen?  Then consider this:

The first Nazi concentration camps were erected in Germany in February 1933 after Hitler became Chancellor and his National Socialist German Workers Party was given control over the police through Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick and Prussian Acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring. The camps were used to indefinitely detain German Citizens who were seen by the State to be political opponents and therefore a threat to the State.  Leaders who organized and openly criticized the State were rounded up and detained in these camps.  It did not start with the Jews. The camps held around 45,000 prisoners by 1933 and were greatly expanded after the Reichstag fire of that year.

Heinrich Himmler’s SS took full control of the police and concentration camps throughout Germany. It was then that Hitler allowed Himmler to start using the camps’ facilities and personnel to purge German society of so-called “racially undesirable elements” that included Jews and criminals. Between 1939 and 1942 during World War II, the number of camps exploded to more than 300, as political prisoners and “undesirable elements” from across Europe were mass-incarcerated without due process.  The State had declared them as a threat and therefore they were criminals.

The National Defense Authorization Act was originally instituted to be a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.  After the attacks on the World Trade Center the NDAA was expanded to include provisions for the unlimited detainment of terrorists.  The passage of the NDAA in 2012 was harshly perceived by the American people but it was still signed into law with a promise from this president that he would not use the authority.  That was hardly enough since it essentially admits the power is there.  The NDAA was amended for 2013. In the amendment Congress included a provision, Sec. 1029, that states that “any person inside the United States” is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus.

The added provision has, however, come under criticism. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) criticized the provision, saying, “The new language [that] ensures the right to habeas corpus (the right to be presented before a judge) is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.”

In the report commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970… written by Gary LaFree and Bianca Bersani, concluded that single issue groups as terrorists.  Among these “terrorists” included are “fundamentalists”, “anti-abortion advocates” and those “suspicious of centralized federal authority” as potential sources of terrorism.

“The most recent decade has been dominated by single issue attacks,” they wrote.

Possible terrorists aligned with the “extreme right-wing” are described as “nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

Beneath the seal of the DHS, the report states it was compiled to “aid the intelligence and law enforcement communities in identifying potential terrorist threats and support policymakers in developing prevention efforts.”

LeFree and Bersani drafted the paper for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Ter… at the University of Maryland, which received an initial grant of $12 millin dollars from the DHS to carry out research on terrorism.

An April 2009 DHS report entitled “Rightwing [sic.] Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate… identified “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration” and opposition to same-sex “marriage” as “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” The DHS later pulled the report.

Yet DHS and FBI agents subsequently attended a terrorism training seminar on alleged pro-life terrorism, hosted by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and the Feminist Majority Foundation. After equating free speech with violence, organizers distributed a resource guide listing three pages of purportedly extremist websites such as Priests for Life, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Constitutional expert John Whitehead o The Rutherfors Institute has voiced concern the 2012 National Defense Authoration Act (NDAA) “would allow the military to show up at your door if you’re a ‘potential terrorist,’ and put you in military detention.”

So, DO YOU STILL THINK IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE, NOT IN AMERICA?

Agenda 21 is the UN Agenda for the 21st Century.  Here, in their own words, is the defense of Sustainable Development:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

In their attempts at indoctrination to their cause they understand the our system of government must be changed:

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Agenda 21 is happening.  It is well-documented and it is being implemented through Federal  Regulation to the State and Compliance by our States through regulation down to the local level.  It seeks to remove private property rights and turn all property in public use land.  Since 1998 literally hundred of attempts to get Sustainable Development laws enacted have been made at the Federal Level, some of the successful.

in the 265 page document that lists only the bill title and summary  U.N. Agenda 21 “Sustainable Development” Introduced in the U.S. Con…: you can read about each of these legislative efforts.

Still Not Convinced:

#1 All 50 U.S. states are now constructing federally-mandated databases that will track the behavior and performance of all public school students in America throughout their entire school careers.  According to the New York Post, the Obama administration wants to use the information that is gathered for a wide array of purposes….

The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience. (source)

#2 All over America, school children are being immersed in the radical green agenda.  In fact, in many areas of the country children are actively trained to watch how their parents behave and to correct them when they are being “environmentally unfriendly”.  The following is from a recent New York Times article about this phenomenon….

“I have very, very environmentally conscious children — more so than me, I’m embarrassed to say,” said Ms. Ross, a social worker in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. “They’re on my case about getting a hybrid car. They want me to replace all the light bulbs in the house with energy-saving bulbs.”

Ms. Ross’s children are part of what experts say is a growing army of “eco-kids” — steeped in environmentalism at school, in houses of worship, through scouting and even via popular culture — who try to hold their parents accountable at home. Amid their pride in their children’s zeal for all things green, the grown-ups sometimes end up feeling like scofflaws under the watchful eye of the pint-size eco-police, whose demands grow ever greater, and more expensive.

Later on in that same article, a district superintendent is quoted as saying that they try to inject the green agenda wherever they can into the curriculum….

“We’re trying to integrate it into anything where it naturally fits,” said Jackie Taylor, the district’s superintendent. “It might be in a math lesson. How much water are you really using? How can you tell? Teachers look for avenues in almost everything they teach.” (source)

#3 One 13-year-old student in New Mexico was recently handcuffed and forcibly removed from a classroom just because he burped in class.  In all, over 200 students in Bernalillo County “have been handcuffed and arrested in the last three years for non-violent misdemeanors”. (source)

#4 All over America, students are being taught that the First Amendment does not apply in public schools.  Expressions of free speech in school are often cracked down upon very hard.  For example, one group of high school athletes was recently suspended for “Tebowing” in the hallways of their school. (Source)

#5 Many public school sex education classes have totally crossed the line.  Instead of just “educating” children about sex, many sex ed courses are now “indoctrinating” children about sex.  One recent example of this was detailed in the New York Times….

IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?

That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control. (source)

#6 Sadly, this “sexual indoctrination” appears to be working.  According to one recent study, sexual conduct between teen girls in the United States is now at the highest level ever recorded. (source)

#7 Putting kids in jail has become standard operating procedure in the United States.  Today, nearly one-third of all Americans are arrested by the police by the time they reach the age of 23.  At this point, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest total prison population on the entire globe, and yet our society just continues to become more unstable. (source)

#8 In some U.S. schools, RFID chips are now being used to monitor the attendance and movements of children while they are at school.  The following is how one artticle recently described a program that has just been instituted at a preschool in California….

Upon arriving in the morning, according to the Associated Press, each student at the CCC-George Miller preschool will don a jersey with a stitched in RFID chip. As the kids go about the business of learning, sensors in the school will record their movements, collecting attendance for both classes and meals. Officials from the school have claimed they’re only recording information they’re required to provide while receiving  federal funds for their Headstart program.(source)

#9 Increasingly, incidents of misbehavior at many U.S. schools are being treated as very serious crimes.  For example, when a little girl kissed a little boy at one Florida elementary school recently, it was considered to be a “possible sex crime” and the police were called out. (source)

#10 In Texas the crackdown extends all the way down to elementary school students.  In fact, it has been reported that Texas police gave “1,000 tickets” to elementary school kids over a recent six year period. (source)

#11 Our children are being programmed to accept the fact that they will be watched and monitored constantly.  For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending large amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of public schools all across the nation so that government control can closely monitor what our children are eating. (source)

#12 If you can believe it, a “certified TSA Official” was recently brought in to oversee student searches at the Santa Fe High School prom. (source)

#13 Last year, a 17 year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father’s lunch with her to school.  It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples.  So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this?  The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor. (source)

#14 In some U.S. schools, armed cops accompanied by police dogs actually conduct surprise raids with their guns drawn.  In the following video, you can actually see police officers aiming their guns at school children as the students are lined up facing the wall.

 

#15 The U.S. government is now encouraging children to spy on their parent as part of the “war on terror”.  If a school official hears that a parent has said the “wrong thing” at home, that parent could potentially get labeled as a “potential terrorist”. (source)

#16 A high school student in Southern California was suspended for two days because he had private conversations with his classmates during which he discussed Christianity.  He was also banned from bringing his Bible to school ever again. (source)

#17 Back in 2009, one 8 year old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross. (source)

#18 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that school officials can search the cell phones and laptops of public school students if there are “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.”  Nothing like indoctrinating them, early into NDAA submission. (source)

Still thinking it can’t happen here in America……then no amount of evidence will convince you of the obvious.

If It Looks Like A Duck….

If a young man were to stand on a soap box outside the steps of your local municipal building and began espousing things like “From each according to their wealth, to each according to their need!”  wouldn’t many of us become suspicious of his ties to Communism and Socialist ideology.    Even if this individual was unaware that he was paraphrasing Karl Mark, even if this individual had no connection to a Socialist Party, the individual is still advancing socialism.

If that individual held a local political office and tried to advance that position, even though they might be completely ignorant of their ideological connections, the ideology is the same and now, if in implementing this policy through local ordinance and law, they are advancing the cause of Socialism.

That is not some bizarre accusation related to a leap of parallel language.  When you are saying the same things you are advancing the same cause and principle.

There are some who separate Agenda 21 from Federal, State and local Government policy no matter how much that Federal State or Local law or ordinance is promoting the same ideology.  For some this is an inability to see a difference between global governance and a global government.  Agenda 21 is really about promoting a world view by encouraging governments to adopt a one-size fits all approach to community planning that drives us towards less Individual Property Rights and more Public Property Rights.  It is a political viewpoint that others know better how you should make use of your land than you do.   Agenda 21 is not really about some centralized Agency of the UN running the world.  It is about pushing an agenda to bring all governments to a common political ideology.  It is an ideology that is foreign to the foundation and principles of America.  It is an ideology that rejects property ownership in the hands of the individual and places that land in some form of government trust.  Agenda 21 is not just a document; it is an ideology…a political world-view.  Anything that advances that world view is a part of that world view.

Agenda 21 promotes specific ratios of land use.  A percentage of land in any designated area should be determined and then permanently secured as open space;  another portion of the land as recreational land; still another for commercial land; another for human settlements.  Through Agenda 21 these ratios become a standard of measurement of the success of each community.  Any Federal or State Regulation that attempts to bring us in compliance is an attempt to bring us under the worldview of Agenda 21 even though that policy may not have come directly from Agenda 21.

Politics is a lot like religion.  We align ourselves to political viewpoints, find a Political Denomination that subscribes to that viewpoint and then we promote that Political Denomination as the only view that embraces absolute truth.  In any Political Religion there are pundits.  The pundits job is to persuade others that their Political religion is the best denomination for us to align ourself with.  Because Americans are indoctrinated to believe in a right vs. left viewpoint we often fail to understand that it is a bit more complicated than simply Republicans Vs. Democrats, or The Right Vs. The Left.  When we reach that point we sometimes lose focus on the principle in assuring that our own political denomination wins the popular vote.

During the Presidential debate, Newt Gingrich was attacked when he said that social engineering is wrong, whether it comes from the right or the left.  The attack came from Republicans and Democrats alike but exactly what was it that is wrong about that statement?    Newt Gingrich was talking about the principles of freedom and liberty belonging in the realm of the unalienable right of Individuals not in the power of a Political viewpoint controlling the individuals choices.  It can be put in another more harsh context:  When you are lying on the ground with a boot on your throat, does it really matter if the boot is a left foot or a right foot?

Agenda 21 is not just a document that came out of the United Nations.  No matter how much we may despise the United Nations, just because a policy originates there doesn’t make it a bad idea.  The thing that makes it a bad idea is the principles…the ideology it advances.   In my opinion, anyone who advances that ideology, whether directly aligned with the United Nations or not, is still advancing that world view.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck-it’s probably a duck.

Locally there has, of late, been a lot of resistance to Agenda 21.  I would align myself with those who oppose it.  Align, perhaps, does not fully encompass how much I despise Agenda 21.  I do not simply despise Agenda 21 because of the document and where it originated, I despise it because it stands in opposition of everything I believe about the principles of Liberty and Freedom.  I abhor the notion that any Government, local, State or Federal,  has all the formulaic solutions to all our problems.  I abhor anything that seeks to further diminish my rights over my own property no matter where it originates.  It’s about the principle.

I have taken the time to read the Agenda 21 document.  I’ve also read the Bruntland Report.  I’ve tried to stay on top of the ideology or Agenda 21  I am familiar with the language of this political world view.  I have tried to stay on top of the implementation of this political world view and there is a common thread.  That common thread is a language that is particular to this worldview that functions as the language of core doctrines that define the principles of Agenda 21.

When that language begins creeping into any government policy, Federal, State or local, I see no difference between the unaware individual on the soapbox promoting socialism with no real connections to Karl Marx and the person promoting the world view of Agenda 21 no matter how unaware they are of Agenda 21.  What they are promoting is an ideology that is in violation of my core belief when it comes to property rights.  It is the principle I oppose not simply a policy or a document.  Something doesn’t suddenly become okay because the individual advancing this world view states it’s not the same as Agenda 21 and can prove no physical allegiance to Agenda 21.  If there is a spiritual equation in that it seeks to advance the same principles of Agenda 21 then there is no difference because it is not the document I oppose but the principles (i.e. the ideology) that the document advances.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dennis Prager’s comment that the number one crisis facing America is that we have forgotten what it means to be American.  I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Folmer when he says that we are sacrificing principle on the altar of self-interest.

I do not disagree with the fact that in order to understand what those who oppose our ideology believe we have to know what they believe.  I also believe that it is more important, however, for us to know not just what we believe but why we believe it.  When we understand this it makes it far more difficult when the opposing ideology comes in front of us to make our points and explain our position, or simply to just recognize what is wrong with this viewpoint.

Three municipalities have rejected the language of Agenda 21.  In doing so they have taken a stand to not simply oppose a document but to stand up for what they believe, for the principles of traditional local governance, and reject the ideological intentions of Agenda 21.  I can assure you that all three municipal decisions were led by research into the ideology of Agenda 21 that has confirmed their own experience as elected officials in our local governments.

This decision does not make them anti-environmental.  They all understand the need to be good stewards of our environment.  They have seen the over-regulatory authority of the State and they understand full-well that compliance bears a long-term heavy price that is born by honest and decent people who are finding it more and more difficult to stay in their homes.

The political ideology of the world-view of those who embrace Agenda 21 has infiltrated both political parties in Pennsylvania and our Federal Government.  Just as the Progressives infiltrated our institutions of higher learning, the ideologues of Agenda 21 have permeated the Administrative agencies of our State and Federal Government.  When President Clinton enacted the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order they adopted the core doctrines of Agenda 21 as their “We Believe” statement.  The agency was manned by people who were instrumental in creating the UN Agenda 21. They then began to develop a plan to move this doctrine into other Administrative Agencies in the Federal Government.  Agencies like the EPA, Department of Agriuculture, HUD and the Department of Energy.  When the President’s Council onSustainable Development was ended many of those same people went into these agencies and began, through regulatory authority, to push the ideology of Agenda 21.

ICLEI realized very early in this process that if the principles of Agenda 21 were to be fully realized, it would have to be implemented at the local level through local government and they set to work adapting eco-friendly language while generating false-crisis to push their formulated ratios of intended land use.  Through the crisis of Global Warming, now simply referred to as Climate Change, they instituted a world view where anyone critical of the science was ostracized which narrowed a window of opposition.  They then used this as the fuel behind Sustainability implementation that was adopted by regional planners and then as States moved to force comprehensive plans down to the local level, forcing them to do something many municipalities felt was unnecessary in order to comply with these new regulations, including the development of a Comprehensive plan that met certain obligations of the Municipality Planning Codes established in the states.

The legislation and documentation to promote this agenda is always unnecessarily longer than they must be to generate confusion about compliance.  Like the “science” of climate change, the data is collected to reach a predetermined conclusion and any “science” contrary to the claims must be universally rejected.

Take the claim that Lebanon County has only 6.5 acres of recreational land for every 1000 residents in the 2007 Regional Comprehensive plan.  This figure does not include State Game land, Golf Courses, County-Owned parks like Coleman, Governor Dick and others and countless other acres of designated recreational land.  Not even the rail to trail is included.  Yet, what we have seen is municipalities ignoring the obvious and embracing the recommendation generating false choices in meeting a need where none exist.  They are trying to comply with a recommendation of meeting a need for more recreational land when, in the County, once all recreational land is included, there is an acre of recreational land for every 5 people.

The “recommendation” of the County Comprehensive plan was to grow the use to rail freight service to stave off truck usage on our roads.  We then see communities scrambling to comply in their locally mandated comprehensive plans responding to claims that are questionable at best.

The compliance is accepting a political world view ideology while ignoring what is really taking place.  We aren’t really responding to actual community needs, which is the intention of local government, but compiling a list of wants that have been predetermined to promote the ideology of Agenda 21 and the cost of all of this implementation will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the property owners through the already egregious property tax.

The common language is there.  It permeates all of these plans because the source of these plans, the promoters, are giving our municipalities selective data to reach a predetermined conclusion and creating needs where often, the need quite simply does not exist.

The promoters promise economic growth and prosperity.  They have openly embraced the myth that if you build it they will come.  Not when they can’t afford it.  Not when the cost is higher than the gain and that is where the entire Sustainability Agenda begins to collapse.

That cost is born by the property owner.  Tucked neatly away within all these plans is the development of new ordinances that only further promote the ideology of public owned land, not private property rights.  Frankly I’m tired of surrendering that right and I don’t care if it’s the UN, The Federal Government, The State Government or my local municipality that is the one taking those rights away.

There is a principle that blood was shed for that allowed this nation to come into being and that was the principle of the protection of our Individual Property Rights and I will not sit by silently while any authority, local or global, seeks to deny those rights to me.  Those rights are not the governments realm to give, only the government’s responsibility to protect and Thank God for the three municipalities who actually recognize that, above all,  it is their responsibility to protect those rights.  The Local Government’s single obligation is to comply with the protection of our Individual and Sovereign Rights, not any regulation regardless of its source.  Any Governmental body or agency who seeks to violate these Rights is guilty of betraying the principle upon which this nation was founded and the intention of the Protections of our State and Federal Constitutions which is paramount to treason.

Let’s stop this nonsense of pretending that because the UN itself isn’t the one driving the Agenda at the local level that it can’t possibly be Agenda 21.  It is more than a document, it is social engineering of the worst kind and any document that promotes the same ideology through the same language has the same intended goals.

If It Looks Like A Duck….

If a young man were to stand on a soap box outside the steps of your local municipal building and began espousing things like “From each according to their wealth, to each according to their need!”  wouldn’t many of us become suspicious of his ties to Communism and Socialist ideology.    Even if this individual was unaware that he was paraphrasing Karl Mark, even if this individual had no connection to a Socialist Party, the individual is still advancing socialism.

If that individual held a local political office and tried to advance that position, even though they might be completely ignorant of their ideological connections, the ideology is the same and now, if in implementing this policy through local ordinance and law, they are advancing the cause of Socialism.

That is not some bizarre accusation related to a leap of parallel language.  When you are saying the same things you are advancing the same cause and principle. 

There are some who separate Agenda 21 from Federal, State and local Government policy no matter how much that Federal State or Local law or ordinance is promoting the same ideology.  For some this is an inability to see a difference between global governance and a global government.  Agenda 21 is really about promoting a world view by encouraging governments to adopt a one-size fits all approach to community planning that drives us towards less Individual Property Rights and more Public Property Rights.  It is a political viewpoint that others know better how you should make use of your land than you do.   Agenda 21 is not really about some centralized Agency of the UN running the world.  It is about pushing an agenda to bring all governments to a common political ideology.  It is an ideology that is foreign to the foundation and principles of America.  It is an ideology that rejects property ownership in the hands of the individual and places that land in some form of government trust.  Agenda 21 is not just a document; it is an ideology…a political world-view.  Anything that advances that world view is a part of that world view.

Agenda 21 promotes specific ratios of land use.  A percentage of land in any designated area should be determined and then permanently secured as open space;  another portion of the land as recreational land; still another for commercial land; another for human settlements.  Through Agenda 21 these ratios become a standard of measurement of the success of each community.  Any Federal or State Regulation that attempts to bring us in compliance is an attempt to bring us under the worldview of Agenda 21 even though that policy may not have come directly from Agenda 21. 

Politics is a lot like religion.  We align ourselves to political viewpoints, find a Political Denomination that subscribes to that viewpoint and then we promote that Political Denomination as the only view that embraces absolute truth.  In any Political Religion there are pundits.  The pundits job is to persuade others that their Political religion is the best denomination for us to align ourself with.  Because Americans are indoctrinated to believe in a right vs. left viewpoint we often fail to understand that it is a bit more complicated than simply Republicans Vs. Democrats, or The Right Vs. The Left.  When we reach that point we sometimes lose focus on the principle in assuring that our own political denomination wins the popular vote. 

During the Presidential debate, Newt Gingrich was attacked when he said that social engineering is wrong, whether it comes from the right or the left.  The attack came from Republicans and Democrats alike but exactly what was it that is wrong about that statement?    Newt Gingrich was talking about the principles of freedom and liberty belonging in the realm of the unalienable right of Individuals not in the power of a Political viewpoint controlling the individuals choices.  It can be put in another more harsh context:  When you are lying on the ground with a boot on your throat, does it really matter if the boot is a left foot or a right foot?

Agenda 21 is not just a document that came out of the United Nations.  No matter how much we may despise the United Nations, just because a policy originates there doesn’t make it a bad idea.  The thing that makes it a bad idea is the principles…the ideology it advances.   In my opinion, anyone who advances that ideology, whether directly aligned with the United Nations or not, is still advancing that world view.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck-it’s probably a duck.

Locally there has, of late, been a lot of resistance to Agenda 21.  I would align myself with those who oppose it.  Align, perhaps, does not fully encompass how much I despise Agenda 21.  I do not simply despise Agenda 21 because of the document and where it originated, I despise it because it stands in opposition of everything I believe about the principles of Liberty and Freedom.  I abhor the notion that any Government, local, State or Federal,  has all the formulaic solutions to all our problems.  I abhor anything that seeks to further diminish my rights over my own property no matter where it originates.  It’s about the principle.

I have taken the time to read the Agenda 21 document.  I’ve also read the Bruntland Report.  I’ve tried to stay on top of the ideology or Agenda 21  I am familiar with the language of this political world view.  I have tried to stay on top of the implementation of this political world view and there is a common thread.  That common thread is a language that is particular to this worldview that functions as the language of core doctrines that define the principles of Agenda 21.

When that language begins creeping into any government policy, Federal, State or local, I see no difference between the unaware individual on the soapbox promoting socialism with no real connections to Karl Marx and the person promoting the world view of Agenda 21 no matter how unaware they are of Agenda 21.  What they are promoting is an ideology that is in violation of my core belief when it comes to property rights.  It is the principle I oppose not simply a policy or a document.  Something doesn’t suddenly become okay because the individual advancing this world view states it’s not the same as Agenda 21 and can prove no physical allegiance to Agenda 21.  If there is a spiritual equation in that it seeks to advance the same principles of Agenda 21 then there is no difference because it is not the document I oppose but the principles (i.e. the ideology) that the document advances.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dennis Prager’s comment that the number one crisis facing America is that we have forgotten what it means to be American.  I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Folmer when he says that we are sacrificing principle on the altar of self-interest.

I do not disagree with the fact that in order to understand what those who oppose our ideology believe we have to know what they believe.  I also believe that it is more important, however, for us to know not just what we believe but why we believe it.  When we understand this it makes it far more difficult when the opposing ideology comes in front of us to make our points and explain our position, or simply to just recognize what is wrong with this viewpoint.

Three municipalities have rejected the language of Agenda 21.  In doing so they have taken a stand to not simply oppose a document but to stand up for what they believe, for the principles of traditional local governance, and reject the ideological intentions of Agenda 21.  I can assure you that all three municipal decisions were led by research into the ideology of Agenda 21 that has confirmed their own experience as elected officials in our local governments.   

This decision does not make them anti-environmental.  They all understand the need to be good stewards of our environment.  They have seen the over-regulatory authority of the State and they understand full-well that compliance bears a long-term heavy price that is born by honest and decent people who are finding it more and more difficult to stay in their homes.

The political ideology of the world-view of those who embrace Agenda 21 has infiltrated both political parties in Pennsylvania and our Federal Government.  Just as the Progressives infiltrated our institutions of higher learning, the ideologues of Agenda 21 have permeated the Administrative agencies of our State and Federal Government.  When President Clinton enacted the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order they adopted the core doctrines of Agenda 21 as their “We Believe” statement.  The agency was manned by people who were instrumental in creating the UN Agenda 21. They then began to develop a plan to move this doctrine into other Administrative Agencies in the Federal Government.  Agencies like the EPA, Department of Agriuculture, HUD and the Department of Energy.  When the President’s Council onSustainable Development was ended many of those same people went into these agencies and began, through regulatory authority, to push the ideology of Agenda 21.

ICLEI realized very early in this process that if the principles of Agenda 21 were to be fully realized, it would have to be implemented at the local level through local government and they set to work adapting eco-friendly language while generating false-crisis to push their formulated ratios of intended land use.  Through the crisis of Global Warming, now simply referred to as Climate Change, they instituted a world view where anyone critical of the science was ostracized which narrowed a window of opposition.  They then used this as the fuel behind Sustainability implementation that was adopted by regional planners and then as States moved to force comprehensive plans down to the local level, forcing them to do something many municipalities felt was unnecessary in order to comply with these new regulations, including the development of a Comprehensive plan that met certain obligations of the Municipality Planning Codes established in the states.

 The legislation and documentation to promote this agenda is always unnecessarily longer than they must be to generate confusion about compliance.  Like the “science” of climate change, the data is collected to reach a predetermined conclusion and any “science” contrary to the claims must be universally rejected.

Take the claim that Lebanon County has only 6.5 acres of recreational land for every 1000 residents in the 2007 Regional Comprehensive plan.  This figure does not include State Game land, Golf Courses, County-Owned parks like Coleman, Governor Dick and others and countless other acres of designated recreational land.  Not even the rail to trail is included.  Yet, what we have seen is municipalities ignoring the obvious and embracing the recommendation generating false choices in meeting a need where none exist.  They are trying to comply with a recommendation of meeting a need for more recreational land when, in the County, once all recreational land is included, there is an acre of recreational land for every 5 people.   

The “recommendation” of the County Comprehensive plan was to grow the use to rail freight service to stave off truck usage on our roads.  We then see communities scrambling to comply in their locally mandated comprehensive plans responding to claims that are questionable at best.

The compliance is accepting a political world view ideology while ignoring what is really taking place.  We aren’t really responding to actual community needs, which is the intention of local government, but compiling a list of wants that have been predetermined to promote the ideology of Agenda 21 and the cost of all of this implementation will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the property owners through the already egregious property tax.

The common language is there.  It permeates all of these plans because the source of these plans, the promoters, are giving our municipalities selective data to reach a predetermined conclusion and creating needs where often, the need quite simply does not exist.

The promoters promise economic growth and prosperity.  They have openly embraced the myth that if you build it they will come.  Not when they can’t afford it.  Not when the cost is higher than the gain and that is where the entire Sustainability Agenda begins to collapse.

That cost is born by the property owner.  Tucked neatly away within all these plans is the development of new ordinances that only further promote the ideology of public owned land, not private property rights.  Frankly I’m tired of surrendering that right and I don’t care if it’s the UN, The Federal Government, The State Government or my local municipality that is the one taking those rights away.

There is a principle that blood was shed for that allowed this nation to come into being and that was the principle of the protection of our Individual Property Rights and I will not sit by silently while any authority, local or global, seeks to deny those rights to me.  Those rights are not the governments realm to give, only the government’s responsibility to protect and Thank God for the three municipalities who actually recognize that, above all,  it is their responsibility to protect those rights.  The Local Government’s single obligation is to comply with the protection of our Individual and Sovereign Rights, not any regulation regardless of its source.  Any Governmental body or agency who seeks to violate these Rights is guilty of betraying the principle upon which this nation was founded and the intention of the Protections of our State and Federal Constitutions which is paramount to treason.

Let’s stop this nonsense of pretending that because the UN itself isn’t the one driving the Agenda at the local level that it can’t possibly be Agenda 21.  It is more than a document, it is social engineering of the worst kind and any document that promotes the same ideology through the same language has the same intended goals.

The Historical Context of the 2nd Amendment

I believe that it is necessary to understand our governing principles in light of original intent. As such this is primarily a history of understanding the intent of the protections affording in the assurance of our individual right to bear arms.  The final paragraphs are a summary of these points built upon the narrative of legal precedent when it comes to the Federal Governments authority to regulate firearms at all..

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

 

Before I start this discussion I want this to be very clear, gun control is not about controlling guns it is about controlling the people.

Proponents of gun-control will often point to “well-regulated militia” in the second amendment to make the claim that the Constitution only protects the right of a National Guard or a Standing Army.  The only reason they can make this claim and deceive so many people is because we have stopped teaching the historical context of America and our Constitution.

The Progressives have worked very hard in making sure that they have separated the connections between the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  They can never be separated.  The grievances listed in the Declaration help us to understand exactly what our founders intended to prevent from happening in the newly formed United States of America.  They have also endeavor to separate our founder’s writing from interpretation of our Constitution as well as to remove all real historical context.

Our right to protect our property does not originate with the Constitution.  An unalienable right would imply that the right has always existed.  Only a unjust government would seek to take from us something that rightfully belongs to us.  They have no more right to take away our right to bear arms as they would have the right to remove one of our limbs.  In attempting to do so they violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and become an unjust and an immoral government.

The book of Exodus in our Scriptures states in Exodus 22: 2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;”

The Talmud, which expanded Jewish law stated “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.”

Citing Thomas Aquinus (1225-1224) Roman Catholic Catechism claims “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.”

Protestant teachings point to Jesus in Luke 22:36 when speaking to his disciples about being persecuted “But now, the person who has a wallet and a traveling bag should take them along. The person who doesn’t have a sword should sell his coat and buy one.”  LEX,REX published in 1644 by Samuel Rutherford, A Scottish Presbyterian Minister said that the “Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. “ Rutherford would explain that in order for governments to be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

Marcus Tullius Cicero declared that the right of self-defense in the protection of our property was essential to persevering our freedoms and liberties.  He carried this thinking into the realm of protection against a government who would destroy our liberties stating:

“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague.”

John Locke was an essential influence over our founders and in his Second Treatise of Government defended the Sovereign right of the individual in the defense of their property against government.  John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights; that when a government attempts to take away these rights that government has no moral existence.

The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both existed before and outside of secular government and certainly existed before the formation of our Constitution.  The Constitution does not exist to grant us a right to bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the protection of the right to defend our property.

At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendments there was no such animal as The National Guard.  Standing Armies were often made up of volunteers who brought with them their own arms in defense of their property, their town and their colony.

From the earliest years of English settlement, colonists had depended on local groups of citizen soldiers to defend themselves from the Indians or at times to maintain law and order. By the time of the French and Indian War, American colonists had come to rely more on British troops and volunteer provincial units for protection, but even though the militia system had deteriorated, Americans held fast to their faith in the concept of the citizen soldier. Beginning with the Stamp Act crisis and extending throughout the Revolution, the Americans’ experience with the British Army only strengthened their hatred of standing armies as implements of monarchy and tyranny and a threat to civilian government.

The colony’s evolving militia system was refined, reorganized, and continually tested in combat. Forced to defend themselves with little or no outside help, the colonists had developed an effective and well organized militia system of citizens that by the 1670’s encompassed nearly all able-bodied, adult males. These individuals, as citizen soldiers, were not full-time standing armies in a government regulated military body.  They were citizens who formed in alliance to defend their land and other property.  Their training was limited by what available time there was as they attended to their regular duties as a citizen, through their business, farming or other occupation.  Yet, when a danger arouse they would seize their own arms and come to the defense of their land and property.

The battle that followed the assault on Lexington and Concord clearly exemplifies the role of the citizen soldier.  It is important to remember that the British Soldiers these Colonial Citizen Soldiers attacked as the British Army travelled from Concord back to Boston were soldiers of the Crown and the Crown was the Official Government of the colonies.  The citizen soldier was standing up to the tyranny of their own government.  The Centralized Government of the British Crown was attempting to regulate every aspect of the Colonies and, in particular, trying to regulate the lives of the people of Boston.  The British Government was, in the eyes of the colonists, interfering with the life, liberty and property of its citizens.

In September of 1776 George Washington pointed out the difference between the well-regulated militia that was made up of citizen-soldiers and the standing army of the colonists when he said “If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.”  As a General of the Standing Armies, Washington inability to control the citizen soldiers as their commanding officer created conflicts and, as a General his negative view of the miltia is understandable.  Others in military leadership had similar sentiments about the militia but the people trusted their militia because they were their family, neighbors and their friends.  The mistrust of a Federal Governments authority over standing armies was realized by the British Occupation of colonial towns that many believed to be a violation of their rights.  The citizens demanded that our new government would have protections against abuses of power in Government through standing armies and they believed that the citizen soldier was part of that protection.

To the authors of the constitution the well-regulated militia had nothing to do with a government organized military force.  It was citizens who had armed themselves in the protection of their property who could be entrusted to stand even if it meant standing in opposition to their own government.

Before we had a Bill Of Rights attached to our Constitution our Constitution included Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution referring to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service.

This caused a general alarm by citizens throughout the colonies who saw this as an attempt by the government to control the citizen soldiers who made up the militias.  There were other areas that raised concerns and a series of papers were written called the Anti-Federalist papers that questioned the intent of the Constitution.  These questions were answered in the Federalist Papers assuring the citizens of the actual intent and it is in these papers where we should primarily turn when attempting to understand Founder’s intent concerning our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

He continued this discourse in Federalist 29 “Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist 46 “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

The effectiveness and usefulness of volunteer citizen soldiers was realized well into the American Civil War.  Here in Lebanon County on the north side of town a park, known as Monument Park, stands in recognition of the 93rd Volunteer Regiment.  A placard at the monument reads

These grounds are part of the site of “Camp Coleman,” where the 93rd Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers trained during the autumn of 1861 for participation in the American Civil War.  The regiment was mustered into the service of the United States on October 28, 1861, with an enrollment of 1,020 officers and men.  The 93rd participated in 26 major battles of the Civil War, serving honorably with the Union Armies of the Potomac and Shenandoah, until mustering out on June 27, 1865.

This had nothing to do with a National Guard but is support of the right of the citizen to bear arms.  The structure of the 2nd Amendment is worth mentioning.  The principle clause in the statement is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The preceding clause is the relationship of this right in the context of a federal Government; that, at times, it may be necessary to rally the citizen soldiers in defense of their country in order to maintain freedom.  It goes further.  The clause is the support of the individual right to bear arms even when bearing those arms is in the protection of the State from the Federal Government if that Federal Government seeks to deny the Free State.

The controlling authority of Government over our National Guard was established by the War Act of 1903 and was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898. The act formulated the concept of the National Guard and also ensured that all state military forces were simultaneously dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. This last measure was to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as “private armies”, in many ways as had been done in the American Civil War and to ensure that the President could not, at any time, mobilize state military forces into the federal armed forces.

Further Federal control over the National Guard was established in 1948 as a joint bureau of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force by order of the Secretary of Defense, effective April 27, 1948, and by Joint Army and Air Force Adjustment Regulation 1-11-20, May 4, 1948, implementing provisions of the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 495), July 26, 1947. The chief of bureau is a general officer serving jointly on the Air Staff and the Army Special Staff. The National Security Act was signed into law the day after the Senate confirmed James Forrestal as the first Secretary of Defense. His power was extremely limited and it was difficult for him to exercise the authority to make his office effective. This was later changed in the amendment to the act in 1949, creating what was to be the Department of Defense.

While the militia of citizen soldiers stands behind the tradition of the National Guard its evolution to today’s National Guard has made it an entirely different creature.  That is not to diminish the role of the National Guard simply to state the historical obvious.  The comparison of claiming that a well-regulated militia exists as our National Guard is to betray the intentions of the 2nd Amendment entirely.

Furthermore. the founders would never have referred to the Federal Government as The State as is often implied in those who think the Federal Government should regulate firearms.  To do so at this period of history before the dumbing down of our educational system would have been a death toll to the constitution and the Bill Of Rights for fear of a Centralized Government where the powers of the individual states would have been subjected to the Federal STATE!

Those who imply this means the National Guard are totally devoid of history.  While the National Guard evolved from the role of the militia in government the claim that the National Guard was the miltia is a distortion of history.  Certainly the state of the National Guard in being regulated through Federal Military Agencies during times of peace would have been unthinkable with our founders.

In spite of assurance by the Federalists, Anti-Federalists insisted upon a bill of Rights and won their case.  The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention made this recommendation:

That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.

This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment.

In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

This was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version.

The final text of the Ninth Amendment, like Madison’s draft, speaks of other rights than those enumerated in the Constitution. The character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights:

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights….that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a “great residuum” of rights that have not been “thrown into the hands of the government,” as Madison put it. The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states.  It states quite distinctly that:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is followed by the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

Thank God for James Madison’s good sense.  The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.

The phrase “…, or to the people.” was appended in handwriting as the Bill of Rights circulated between the two Houses of Congress.

The enumerated powers of Congress do not include the regulation of firearms or their usage.  The enumerated powers of the President also does not include this authority.

As the Constitution concerns the relationship between the people of the United States and their Federal Government the matters of the Constitution are related specifically to that role, not to intrusion, at every level,  in the affairs of the State and it’s Citizens. When the statement is made that right shall not be infringed it means exactly that and as such the regulation of an Individual’s right to a firearm is not within the enumerated powers of the Federal Government whatsoever.

By exaggerating the Interstate Commerce Clause and creating a General Welfare Clause (where none was intended) the Federal Government has done exactly what the Anti-Federalists warned us it would do if the powers of the Federal Government went unchecked.

The slow progress of turning and conditioning a public to view certain law-abiding citizens as criminals has destroyed the moral fabric of this nation.  The attempt to paint all law abiding citizen who possesses a firearm outside the purposes of sport as a threat to the National Security of the United States is ridiculous.  The only threat that these law-abiding citizens may possess is a threat to tyranny and tyrants always recognize that threat.  In order to control law-abiding citizens and place them under oppression the citizenry must be dis-armed.  The criminal, in this case is the government, not the people.

As our government had been formed for the protection of the rights of the people and was the first to openly embrace the right of the people to bear arms in the protection of their property we see the rapidity of the intent of this administration to undermine the very fundamentals of our form of government to replace it with a new form of government that will exert tyrannical oppression over those oppose them.  Not that previous administrations were without blame, but the accelerated course that this administration is undergoing is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

The 2nd amendment is nothing more than the assurance of the recognition that the right to protect and defend ourselves does not come from government and therefore can not be regulated by government ‘except in times of military conflict and engagement.  During these times the government still can not forbid individual rights to firearms but can regulate the bodies assembled in defense of the protection of our rights and liberties whether this be a standing army or bodies of citizen soldiers but the right of the individual citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any such infringement is a violation of the Constitution and as such is outside the jurisdiction of a government in the United States of America.  It is a force so Alien to the founding principles of this nation that it has no place.  To even entertain the notion of infringing the right of the people to bear arms is a criminal act.  When attempts are done so legislatively it is an act of treason against the Governing Principles of this nation and its citizens who legally abide herein.