We have Constitutional Law on our side - We simply have to enforce the nullification of Unconstitutional Laws by Congress

I have researched court rulings on the constitution.

It seems though Congress and the President may pass and sign federal laws, any that are unconstitutional (like NDAA, FISA, a gun ban, etc) are in reality null and void.   The constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and all states can easily nullify them.  They already have that right, they just have to use it.

The courts, especially the Supreme Court has to rule by the constitution.   They are required to hold the constitution up as the supreme law and then interpret any laws passed by Congress and the Senate using the Constitution as the standard of the law.  They then can nullify federal laws as unconstitutional.  The suits have to be filed and be heard by them of unconstitutional laws.

That means there is no way that the NDAA is in any form constitutional, even though the U.S. government wants to say it is for all the "domestic terrorist", which they think everyone of us are.   This means spying on us without warrants and reading our emails and listening to our phone calls etc is completely unconstitutional.   Needless to say arresting and holding a U.S. citizen without rights to a trial and so on are completely unconstitutional. 

This also means that the state legislators need to have the balls to stand up for the citizens of their states and nullify all federal laws that do not abide and follow our constitution.

It seems they have been able to get by with all the unconstitutional laws due to all of our inactions and ignorance of the laws.   That is what they have counted on and of course all those smart phones, T.V., etc keeps the people in "dumb down" mode.

I believe this gun grab may have been a catalyst to wake people up.

The point with this is... instead of getting ourselves worked up over what they have been doing, we simply need to stand up and give it back to them by the Supreme Law of the land that they can not change.  Once we have the knowledge, we also have the power to stop it.  We just have to do it smart without violence.
____________________________________________________________________________
**Edit to add.  After I did this article I found that others are writing about the same thing.  Here is a great article from Market Ticker - Karl Denninger about our constitution and it being the Supreme Law of the land and over rules all other laws  **
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here are links proving what I have said above:

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.^[2]

The First Supreme Court ruling declaring a federal law being unconstitutional was in 1803:

A portion of the ruling:

• Despite the fact that the Court seemed to agree that Marbury was in the right, they ruled against him, because they found that they didn't have the power to hear the case.
  • Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the court system and gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.
    • Although, to be honest, the Judiciary Act of 1789 should be read to say that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in mandamus cases. Most legal scholars feel that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law. Section 13 talks about the Supreme Court's Appellate jurisdiction, so it's wrong to read that it gives original jurisdiction.
  • However, Article III of the Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction only in cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, and those in which the state is a party". In all other cases, the Supreme Court only acts as an appellate court to 'inferior courts'.
    • Article III is talking about representatives of foreign governments, not US Ambassadors and Ministers.
    • Article III also has an exceptions clause which states, "...with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." This can certainly be interpreted to mean that the Judiciary Act of 1789 augments Article III, as opposed to being in conflict with it.
  • Therefore, the Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with the Constitution.
  • The Court found that in cases of confliction, the Constitution, by right of it's being the basis for the entire government must take precedence. It is superior, paramount, and is unchangeable by ordinary means.
    • Article VI could be read to show that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (aka the Supremacy Clause). Or, you can read it to just say that all laws passed previous to the Constitution no longer count.
    • The Constitution is very clear on how it is to be changed (and it's purposefully hard). If Congress can unofficially change the Constitution through normal transitive legislative means, then what's the point of making it so hard to officially change the Constitution?
  • The Court found that they have a duty to say what the law is. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the right to say that a law enacted by Congress (or anybody else) is invalid, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The judicial power of the US is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
    • Since the Constitution is defined to be a supreme law, somebody has to take on the duty of striking down laws that conflict with the Constitution. And if that isn't the Supreme Court, then who? Court says, "Given the structure of the government, there must be someone whose job it is to say the legislature has done wrong... that power shall flow to the judiciary."
• So basically, the Court found that they were being asked to uphold two laws that were in conflict, one saying that they could issue a writ of mandamus and one saying they couldn't. Since the Constitution trumps any law Congress makes, the Court is forced to follow the Constitution and find that the conflicting law is not applicable (aka unconstitutional).
  • So they told Marbury that even though he deserved a writ of mandamus they had no power to grant one.
    • Ironically, the ruling significantly increased the power of the Supreme Court by ruling Congress had no right to increase their powers!
• This case established that Article III of the Constitution is the maximum jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Congress can't give them more powers by just passing a law.
  • They would have to pass a Constitutional amendment in order to give the judiciary more powers.
• This case also established that the Supreme Court has authority for judicial review of legislative acts.
  • This ruling gave one supposedly co-equal branch of government oversight over another co-equal branch of government!

What this fully means is that We the People of the United States can have the Federal Laws that are completely unconstitutional nullified.  It is time for us to take actions.   I don't know constitutional lawyers.  Maybe someone who is reading this can pass it on to lawyers that are willing to stand up for the constitution.  Also, I believe our military needs to start standing up to the oath they all took which is for the constitution and enemies that are foreign and domestic.   

The enemies of this land are not the ones screaming and shouting about unconstitutional laws, the enemies are the ones who are committing treason and passing unconstitutional laws.


It is now time for us all to stand up on an intellectual basis and not a violent one.  All we have to do is demand that our states rule and nullify by the constitution.  If they will not we need to start filing in Federal Courts all across the land lawsuits against all the unconstitutional laws/bills passed by those who are in Washington D.C.


We need to do this through intelligence not through violence.  We would never win being violent.  The way to win is through what we already have we just have to start having it applied!  No more fear!  Stand up for what our rights are right now.  The Supreme Law of the land is the Constitution!  

LETS DO THIS THE SMART WAY AND LETS LIVE TO TELL ABOUT IT AND TO ENSURE WE HAVE A FREE COUNTRY FOR OUR CHILDREN!

ALSO WE CAN TAKE ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS HAVING DEBT AS MONEY AND HAVING A PRIVATE BANK AS THE RULING ENTITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  IN FACT TAKING US OFF THE GOLD STANDARD WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Our 2nd amendment is there to protect us against a government that over steps it's bounds of our freedoms.  Due to the government having bigger and badder weapons it is only correct that the U.S. citizens keep up with what could be used against us through tyranny. 

I got an email this morning and I believe it makes a strong argument.

Here is the email I received:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. 

I am the man who keeps you free.

I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. 

I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

    FYI - Obama was on Meet the Press this morning 12/29/12, from my understanding  portions of what he said:

 President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.
“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

 Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action. 
I'd like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden's task force is putting together as we speak.  And so this is not something that I will be putting off."
But the push for heightened gun control will likely face tough political opposition, with the nation’s largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying they will oppose any new restrictions. 
The group earlier this month held a press conference calling for national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, a move they said would be more effective at preventing future tragedies like Newtown. 
Obama on Sunday said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal. 
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” said the president.

 Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting.

So he wants a bill passed immediately and he doesn't think armed guards in schools as the answer to the problem. 

OH.... here is a picture of the guards  where Obama and the "elite" including the media personalities send their children to school in Washington D.C ....hhhmmm... is that the height of hypocrisy?   11 armed guards at that school!

 

One other thing.  In Israel they arm the teachers.  Just as some states are looking at doing today.  Here is an article about that.

Proof "Smoking 'Guns' - Sandy Hook school shooting pictures of two 'guns/rifles' taken from trunk of car. Hypocrisy of Feinstein and Movie Stars.

Well, it seems that what the authorities have said about the gun used to kill the children in Sandy Hook was a lie.

We have to ask, how could one person in a few minutes time be able to shoot multiple times and kill 26 people.  They had said that only handguns were used in the beginning.  They then changed that.   The news reported that it was "only" handguns taken inside the school.

The court in Connecticut has sealed all the information from the shooting for at least 90 days.  I guess this is so they can straighten the story up more and due to so many on the internet proving what they said has not been the full truth. 

Here is the absolute confirmation from authorities as reported on NBC News:





Then there is the fact that they say he drove his mother's car to the scene.  We now know (though the public does not) is that he did not drive his mother's BMW to the school but a convicted convict's car by the name of Christopher A. Rodia.  The media and authorities have never clarified that.  But it was heard on the radio scanner.

They then came out and said an AR-15 was used in the school shooting and they had been mistaken in saying it was in the trunk of the car.   There was a helicopter that was flying and recording the authorities opening up the trunk of the car.  Here is the video of that.  I also have screen captures of it that are cropped showing them getting two rifles/guns out of the trunk of the car.
I am putting this video at the end of the article as it goes along with all the pictures I screen shot of the video.


Now, why hasn't the media or the authorities mentioned this name in public?  Why haven't they corrected the information that he did not drive his mother's car to the school?   How was he associated with Rodia?  Where is Rodia?  Was he the one that was found hiding in the woods?

What happened to the witness that said she saw 2 men run on the side of the building into the woods?    It was confirmed that there was someone arrested in the woods.  Then there was silence, there has not even been an explanation of who that person was.  




I have written multiple times about the Sandy Hook shooting.   Here are the articles:  Things not adding up,  school list of teachers,  police radio scanner (this has the Chris Rodia info over the scanner too), video proof positive of media lie.

What is something I can not even fully comprehend is that beautiful innocent children were killed in a horrific manner, yet we are not getting the truth about what happened.  The story has fallen apart in every way the authorities have tried to push on us with the media.   It has been proven that it could not have happened the way they said.  They still have not mentioned any videos from the school.

I have to talk about the hypocrisy of those who are calling for a gun ban, especially all those celebrities that made a video demanding a "gun plan." All of them looked so serious about the demand and saying the government needs to do something. I have a question for them..... do any of your security guards have guns? I have found lots of pictures and videos of them with their armed bodyguards. Are you willing to have the guns taken from your security before they are taken away from the public at large? Do you feel you have a right to armed security and the populace does not? Here is a great video that shows the stars on that video and the movies they have done.... Love it!




David Gregory of "Meet the Press" was grilling a person trying to shame them regarding the NRA saying armed guards need to be in schools. Gregory was saying that guns should be banned and schools did not need guards. What did he forget to say live on camera regarding that subject? Oh, just the fact that he sends his kids to a school that has 11 armed guards. It is the same school Obama sends his children to. So.... only the "privileged" should have their children protected I gather. All the rest of our children aren't good enough to have protection.

Here is a photo of Sidwell school's armed guards, it looks like they have some pretty intense weapons there.   

Now for the absolute height of hypocrisy - Feinstein who wants to ban guns for the citizens of the United States and is committing a treasonous act by introducing a bill to take away our 2nd amendment has a concealed carry permit which she utilizes.   Out of her own mouth, she said so:



There is a petition calling for her to be impeached. It has 11666 signatures so far.


Here is the video showing the authorities getting two guns out of the vehicle with the screen shots below it. The points to watch are at starting at the 40 second mark going to the 2:40 mark. This shows the trunk of the vehicle.


Here are screen shots from the video above that I captured. You can clearly see two "long" guns taken from the trunk of the vehicle.

Sandy Hook Guns in Trunk

Close up of the vehicle trunk

One of the guns being unloaded before the men in white outfits take it.

One of the guns out of the car as the other man is reaching in to grab the other.

2 guns gotten out of trunk.  One in the top left person's right hand and one in the man's hand on the right.

Close up, where you can see both guns

I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook and I find it really hard to understand and comprehend that beautiful young innocent lives were taken that day.  Was it a false flag to ban guns?  If so the people behind it are truly evil that they would resort to killing beautiful innocent children for a gun grab.   It does not seem possible that Adam Lanza did this on his own with handguns.  We know they have now lied many times about this shooting.  Because of the ongoing lies are why so many of us are questioning the whole event.   What really happened there?  The proof has been shown it could not have been as they have told us though they keep changing the story.

We have never gotten any motive for the killing.  Why the silence from the father, Peter Lanza, who was from all accounts suppose to have been dead in his home in New Jersey.   He has not said one word about it.

I wrote about the history and reasoning of the Revolutionary war and a case history of Zimbabwe and what happened after all the owners of guns were made to register them.  They then were confiscated and then genocide of the people.  All of this with the blessings of the Western governments, including the Queen of England knighting Mugabe in the "Order of the Bath."


Dave Hodges from the Commonsense show wrote about "What History teaches us about Gun Confiscations"

Wow Forbes ran an oped about the 2nd amendment, here is a paragraph from it:

 The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

This is the point that we either stand up for our rights or we let the government take them away.  We have allowed them to do that in the past but we can not anymore.  This is a turning point of the United States of America where we either let her disintegrate into a country that the people that died fighting for our freedoms throughout our history would have died in vain and for naught, or those that stand up.  Are we the generation that gets our country back to where she is a country of the free or will we let her go down into a country of Nazism? 

Where do you stand?

UPDATE 1/14/13 - My message to MSM and them calling anyone questioning Sandy Hook "Nuts and Conspiracy Theorist>"

Let's revisit the Revolutionary War... What led to it . Also.. case history of Zimbabwe from Democracy to Dictatorship with Gun Registration to Confiscation to Genocide

I believe it is time to review the 1775-1783 REVOLUTIONARY WAR where Americans won their Independence FOR THEIR CONSTITUTION against England.

It is very interesting, in that the people in America felt they were being taxed without representation in 1776.... hhmmm... sounds a little familiar.

Also that England was doing things against their "constitutional rights" during that time.   hhmm.... that also sounds familiar.

Here is what Wikipedia has about the REVOLUTIONARY WAR where the United States became it's own country and WHY it happened:

 In this article, inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occasional references to "Patriots", "Whigs", "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories". The geographical area of the thirteen colonies is often referred to simply as "America".


The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,^[8] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the newly formed United States of America, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other. The main result was an American victory and European recognition of the independence of the United States, with mixed results for the other powers.

The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional.^{[citation needed]} The British Parliament insisted it had the right to tax colonists to finance the colonies' military defense, which had become increasingly expensive due to the French and Indian Wars. The colonists claimed that, as they were British subjects, taxation without representation in Parliament was illegal. The American colonists formed a unifying Continental Congress and a shadow government in each colony, though at first remaining loyal to the king. The American boycott of taxed British tea led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when shiploads of tea were destroyed. London responded by ending self-government in Massachusetts and putting it under the control of the British army with General Thomas Gage as governor. In April 1775 Gage learned that weapons were being gathered in Concord, and he sent British troops to seize and destroy them.^[9] Local militia confronted the troops and exchanged fire (see Battles of Lexington and Concord). After repeated pleas to the British monarchy for intervention with Parliament, any chance of a compromise ended when the Congress were declared traitors by royal decree, and they responded by declaring the independence of a new sovereign nation, the United States of America, on July 4, 1776. American Loyalists rejected the Declaration, and sided with the king; they were excluded from power everywhere. American attempts to expand the rebellion into Quebec and the Floridas were unsuccessful.

France, Spain and the Dutch Republic all secretly provided supplies, ammunition and weapons to the revolutionaries starting early in 1776. By June 1776 the Americans were in full control of every state, but then the British Royal Navy captured New York City and made it their main base. The war became a standoff. The Royal Navy could occupy other coastal cities for brief periods, but the rebels controlled the countryside, where 90 percent of the population lived. British strategy relied on mobilizing Loyalist militia, and was never fully realized. A British invasion from Canada in 1777 ended in the capture of the British army at the Battles of Saratoga. That American victory persuaded France to enter the war openly in early 1778, balancing the two sides' military strength. Spain and the Dutch Republic—French allies—also went to war with Britain over the next four years, threatening an invasion of Great Britain and severely testing British military strength with campaigns in Europe. Spain's involvement resulted in the expulsion of British armies from West Florida, securing the American southern flank. The decisive British naval victory at the Battle of the Saintes thwarted French and Spanish plans to drive Britain out of the Caribbean, and the joint Franco-Spanish attempt to capture the British stronghold of Gibraltar also resulted in similar defeat.
French involvement proved decisive^[10] yet expensive, ruining France's economy and driving the country into massive debt.^[11] A French naval victory just outside Chesapeake Bay led to a siege by combined French and Continental armies that forced a second British army to surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. Fighting continued throughout 1782, while peace negotiations began.
In 1783, the Treaty of Paris ended the war and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded roughly by what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west.^[12][13] A wider international peace was agreed, in which several territories were exchanged.

 There is all kinds of information about the various areas of the war and how it was fought on Wikipedia, here is a little more:

The Americans

The Americans began the war with significant disadvantages compared to the British. They had no national government, no national army or navy, no financial system, no banks, no established credit, and no functioning government departments, such as a treasury. The Congress tried to handle administrative affairs through legislative committees, which proved inefficient. In peacetime the colonies relied heavily on ocean shipping, but that was now shut down by the British blockade.
The Americans had a large, relatively prosperous population (when compared to other colonies) that depended not on imports but on local production for food and most supplies, something the British could not sufficiently rely on. They were on their home ground, had a smoothly functioning, well organized system of local and state governments, newspapers and printers, and internal lines of communications. They had a long-established system of local militia, previously used to combat the French and Native Americans, with companies and an officer corps that could form the basis of local militias, and provide a training ground for the national army that the Congress set up.^[92] Fighting on their home ground, the Americans were also much more acclimatised to the climate than the British and their allies.^{[citation needed]}
At the onset of the war, the Americans had no major international allies. Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, Battles of Saratoga and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown^[93] proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations such as France and Spain, who moved from covertly supplying the Americans with weapons and supplies, to overtly supporting them militarily, moving the war to a global stage.^[94]
Upon the creation of the Continental Army to combat the British forces and their allies in North America, the army suffered significantly from a lack of an effective training regime, and largely inexperienced officers. The inexperience of its officers was compensated for in part by its senior officers; officers such as George Washington, Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, Richard Montgomery and Francis Marion all had military experience with the British Army during the French and Indian conflict. The Americans solved their training dilemma during their stint in Winter Quarters at Valley Forge, where they were relentlessly drilled and trained by Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a veteran of the famed Prussian General Staff. He taught the Continental Army the essentials of military discipline, drills, tactics and strategy, and wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual, which was used to train American troops up until the War of 1812.^[95] When the Army emerged from Valley Forge, they proved their ability to equally match the British troops in battle when they fought a successful strategic action at the Battle of Monmouth.

I found this history very interesting.  It seems that the people had enough of a tyranny government that was taxing and trying to control everything they did.  The people also stood up saying it was unconstitutional.

WOW... it sure is great going back in history especially since we now have a run away government and every elected official has become a traitor to the country.  They have passed legislation over and over again that directly conflicts with our constitution.  From the NDAA bill that allows the detaining of U.S. citizens without any rights, the new bill they just passed that allows all of our electronic emails to be read without warrants and now they are going to take our guns.   Besides that we are now treated as criminals and terrorist and have to prove our innocence instead of being the other way around.

We have a treasonous government that does not recognize the constitution in any form anymore.  They have locked us up in an Orwellian world.  We are watched when driving down the road and walking down the street.  Who knows how they can see into our homes and bedrooms now.   (besides of course phones doing that)

I for one do not understand how the people of this country don't give a shit about their country and what the government does to them.  I guess they are too zombied out and brainwashed with their little smart phones that mean more to them then freedoms.

We have traitors of our constitution and country that are making the laws of this country.  But the laws were all ready set in 1776 when Americans won a hard fought Revolutionary war for their FREEDOMS!

One thing is for sure the Americans of 1776 had the balls to stand up to tyranny and traitors......

Funny how during that time they called those who stood up for their country "Patriots" now they call those who stand up for their country "terrorists."  Kind of funny how that has turned around.... who would have ever thought people would be considered "terrorists" for being a constitutional law abiding citizen? 

With the Feinstein bill in the Senate to confiscate guns including hand guns and registration of all guns, I believe we need to look at current history of what can happen if that is allowed to occur.

FYI - Feinstein says she has been working for over one year on the bill!  That says there was "premeditation" to take away our 2nd amendment rights way before the Connecticut shooting.  Just like the Patriot Act right after 9/11, which had already been written a year before. 

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”

ZIMBABWE CASE HISTORY - DEMOCRACY TO DICTATORSHIP AND GUN CONTROL TO GUN CONFISCATION TO GENOCIDE - BESIDES COLLAPSE OF A CURRENCY (not included in this article).

Please make sure to see how England has supported Mugabe and the Queen has even knighted him when he was committing Genocide against the citizens of Zimbabwe!

  

Mugabe at UN

It is now time to look at the most recent country that was a Democracy that had 3 levels of government for protection.  Zimbabwe, believe it or not had an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government for shared power before 1980 when Mugabe was "elected" as President.  Since 2000 the structure of government completely collapsed.

Since the defeat of the constitutional referendum in 2000, politics in Zimbabwe has been marked by a move from the norms of democratic governance, such as democratic elections, the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, freedom from racial discrimination, the existence of independent media, civil society and academia. Recent years have seen widespread violations of human rights.

 Here is an article on how Mugabe is President for life now and has committed genocide in the country. 

 The Robert Mugabe government of Zimbabwe is the most corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent in Africa. And, on a continent that has the most corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent governments in the entire world, Mugabe’s achievement in this regard is a truly dubious distinction. [The iPINIONS Journal, March 2005]

Five years ago, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa; today, it is a basket case of starving people. Five years ago, there were 4000 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe; today, there are only 400 – mostly unproductive – farms left. [The iPINIONS Journal, March 2005]

Now... this is MOST interesting about Zimbabwe..... this was written by the "Jewish society for Preservation of gun ownership.

Zimbabwe enacted a gun law that made certain guns illegal and then a National registrar of guns was implemented.   Wow  that sounds totally familiar!   Once the guns were confiscated and the "legal" guns were registered.... the government knew who to target for the kill! 

Breaking News --
Zimbabwe Gun Confiscation Ordered!

What more proof do you need?

So-called sensible gun laws, such as national registration of firearms and licensing of owners, pave the way for gun confiscation. We've said it for over 15 years.

We described the process in detail in Death by "Gun Control" (book) and "Innocents Betrayed" (video). We provided copies of the key provisions of the laws that set up "gun control" that later enabled genocide. In our book we even provided copies of the provisions of the gun laws in Zimbabwe. (See pages 190-193).

Breaking News -- July 2, 2005: The Zimbabwe government has ordered confiscation of civilian firearms.

Read the news item:

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12207

The news report begins:

"Zimbabwe police have ordered all civilians to surrender firearms in what insiders said was a precautionary measure in a charged country after the government demolished thousands of homes and informal businesses in a controversial urban clean-up exercise.

"Police at the weekend said they were revoking licences for all automatic rifles and some types of pistols and said civilians owning such weapons had until today to surrender them.

"The law enforcement agency did not give reasons for the action but warned Zimbabweans that they could be prosecuted for failing to hand in their guns."

This is no trivial matter. On June 7, 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars published a warning about the looming danger of mass murder by government in Zimbabwe.

Read the scholars' declaration:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/ZimbabweIAGSResolution7June2005.htm

Notice that the genocide scholars do see the danger -- but they fail to point out that "gun control" with follow-up gun confiscation are two key elements to making the Zimbabwe persecution and genocide possible. The scholars calmly call for various international agencies to "exert diplomatic pressure" on Zimbabwe.

If the Rwanda genocide provides any example, then hoping for international help for persecuted Zimbabweans is beyond foolish, it's fatally stupid.

People who want to protect their lives and their families and their communities must commit to taking care of the job themselves. Civilian disarmament laws work against people protecting themselves and their families. Those laws (when obeyed) leave the disarmed people subject to persecution and destruction.

The genocide scholars don't get it. The civilian disarmament ("gun control") advocates and lobbyists don't get it.

What will it take for American gun owners and pro-rights citizens to unify against "gun control" and proclaim the vicious injustice that "gun control" laws impose upon innocent people?

Action items: read these articles (above) and forward this Alert to every gun owner you know.

What is absolutely reprehensible is the fact that England and the Western countries have supported Mugabe's genocide and have looked the other way. What is even in-comprehensible is the fact that the Queen of England knighted Mugabee into the "Order of the Bath." while he was committing genocide against the citizens of Zimbabwe.

At the same time, asked by the BBC Panorama stringers for comment, British deputy high commissioner Roger Martin defended Mugabe’s ethnic cleansing as “comprehensible, it has a certain rationality other than mere brutishness”, he said.

The symbiotic relationship between Mugabe and the British did not end with rhetorical support and money changing hands, but it extended to royal endorsement for Mugabe and his policies.

 In 1994 the queen of England invited Mugabe to England’s Buckingham Palace and Knighted him with the Order of Bath when Mugabe’s hands were still dripping with the blood of black civilians slaughtered in the Gukurahundi genocide.

When I have written "We are going Zimbabwe in regards to the money printing the U.S. is doing in previous articles, I had no idea we were going Zimbabwe in all respects. 

I have to wonder if there are those at the top of the current U.S. government that have studied history and how to take over and create a dictatorship through "doing the best for the people?"

OUR 2nd Amendment says:


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.

Also it is interesting to see where so many people's mindset is in this country when I read comments about the gun ban.  I see so many calling gun owners "murderers, terrorists, criminals, etc. just for owning a gun.  WOW, who knew that utilizing the 2nd amendment of our constitution would become a criminal event.....


Oh, one other thing... seems the morning shows aren't mentioning the confiscation of hand guns as part of their news.....  so funny how the network medias work.  Guess they don't want to let the public as a whole know the government is going for confiscation and registration.... which could possibly lead to ALL confiscation and genocide of the people of the United States when there are no more rights by laws created, by those in Washington for the citizens of the U.S. I am not saying genocide is planned in the U.S., I am saying that history shows genocide happens when the citizens of countries are disarmed for the "betterment of the country and the people's good."


Read these Bill of Rights.... and tell me if there is even ONE left......  We have let them take our Rights away one by one.... they have done it slowly but surely.   Every thing in bold is GONE and no more......

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

---

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Amendment II

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.

---

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Amendment IX

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

---

Amendment X

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.




Natural News wrote an article about gun confiscation today.   It is a great read. 


I am simply stating history with this article and stating the obvious.  Those who are in Washington D.C. took the oaths to uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights in these United States, but they have done the opposite.  At what point will we demand our rights be returned and our Constitution be reinstated?   Also by asking these questions and stating the obvious does that make me a "criminal"?   If so... that would mean our 1st amendment is also gone. 

I don't believe we will be able to stop any confiscation of guns because the reality is they will go to individual homes with Swat teams etc.   There is no mass defending of our rights individually.  I believe it will need to be through our justice system and waking people up to the fact we don't have rights anymore.   I believe the military will need to take a hard look at the destruction of our Bill of Rights and the treason that is being committed.  They took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States.  

Where on this Earth and in what country are people really free?  Tell me that and there will be a mass exodus of Americans.


FYI - There is a petition to try Feinstein for Treason on the Whitehouse.gov site.  I don't believe it will actually go anywhere, but I had signed it yesterday.  Today Alex Jones wrote about it. 
Maybe if enough people sign it.... our displeasure and our stand for our rights will get noticed more.



I have one more question for everyone....... Did all those U.S. soldiers throughout our history that gave their lives for our freedoms die in vain as we let our Freedoms disappear, when they fought for them? 

NRA not just about Guns it is about our Freedoms! 

OMG - Senate Bill for Guns would ban handguns too. Any owned: government wants all info of person including fingerprints.

WOW

The Feinstein bill is going for the works with banning guns.  It includes handguns too.  Basically any semi-automatic guns that can hold more than 10 rounds.

I am appalled with the fact that they are really going for our 2nd amendment right.

This is Wrong in every respect.  A whole country is going to be penalized for a few nut jobs.

I can't believe this will pass, but then again we don't know what they have planned for us in the future.

I want to see all those associated with the government officials who may protect them get rid of their guns first!  But.... oh wait... it will be fine for a few to have the guns for protection but the masses will not be allowed their rights?

It is time for us to stand up for our Constitution, they have taken it away, but it is our Rights and our decree as this country's laws should uphold!

BullShit!

Here is the Bill from Feinstein's website linked above:

UPDATE 12/28/12 - I just read Feinstein's statement on the new bill, which is linked below.
This is VERY telling - it shows "premeditation, just like the Patriot act after 9/11"  She has been working on taking our 2nd amendment right away for over one year now! 

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

• Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
• Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

BTW - I am shocked at the type of comments I have been reading on places like Huffington Post and other very liberal media sites.

People are calling gun owners "crooks" and "murderers" besides many other things.  I am literally shocked that some believe those who own guns are criminals.  How is it that being a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights makes them a criminal? 

What has happened to this country?

NRA not just about Guns it is about our Freedoms!