 Thank you America, thank you for everything you've done for us. The United States of America has existed for more than 230 years. In these past centuries, the U.S. Constitution, based upon the Declaration of Independence and the laws of nature, has served as the blueprint for the American Dream. For some people, the American Dream is having a lot of material things, you know, having a bigger house, having a bigger car, being able to take expensive vacations and that sort of thing. But whichever your interpretation is, the American Dream does rest upon a society that is prosperous, and a prosperous society can only come from a society that is also free. Unfortunately, the American Dream has not been available to all. Because of this, some have grown disenchanted, not only with the Constitution, but with America itself. Sadly, the American Dream is dead. Some have called for a new America, an America 2.0, or at least new political parties. It's political, but the political consequence comes from a philosophy and the ideas. We have been living for over 100 years with ideas which challenges the basic concept of what the country is supposed to be all about and what the founders thought it should be. Perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law and to protect our liberties. Others have called for no political parties, and still others want no government at all. These maintain that taxes are theft, war is murder, debt is slavery, and all are products of the statist mentality. We have higher taxes, we have inflation, we have job insecurity, we have unemployment, we have illegal wars overseas. Government issued license fees, permits, permissions, all of these things that complicate the American people's normal daily routines. Most, however, simply want a limited government, a government that provides enough security to guarantee liberty while acknowledging and respecting our inalienable rights. We're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it's self-evident. He was referring to natural law. He referred to the law of nature and nature is God in that same declaration. What can be said about natural law is that, number one, it precedes all human law. It is ultimately the basis for all human law, and all human law must be consistent, at least with the basic principles of natural law. That means that governments cannot make claims to omnipotence as it were, because governments themselves are the products of natural law. But in asserting these rights, citizens have all too often been met with excessive force, what could be called police brutality. And many have observed that this brutality has been escalating since September 11th, 2001, with the passage of the Patriot Act and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. Department of Homeland Security, they were spawned out of this Patriot Act. If we didn't have that Patriot Act, we wouldn't have had this whole bureaucracy, this infrastructure, militarized police state, primarily through the Department of Homeland Security. First, in the name of the war on drugs, then later in the name of the war on terrorism and the war on crime, we've seen an escalation, an militarization of the police and an increasing mindset among police officers, well, I'll do whatever it takes to get home alive, and they're forgetting their oath. Their first obligation, above all other obligations, is to defend the Constitution. The U.S. founders knew there would be times like this, and this is why they gave us the Bill of Rights. More specifically, this is why they gave us the Second Amendment, the amendment that guarantees not only these rights, but America's freedom. To this end, the Second Amendment states, 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. What part of infringed, don't you understand, I was asking that to all the lawmakers in the country who passed gun control laws, because it's not that hard of a word to get. And the synonym that I really like the most is hinder. You can't hinder my possession of firearms. Do background checks hinder my right to keep and bear arms? Do waiting periods hinder my right to keep and bear arms? Do all these other regulations about what kind of gun you can own, how much ammunition you can own, and all these other 20,000 gun control laws in this country now? Do they hinder the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms? Absolutely they do. They're all unconstitutional. They're all infringements regarding the Second Amendment. Let's be real clear here. We're talking about the Supreme Law of the Land. The Bill of Rights is the supreme of the supreme laws of this country. Gun control in the United States of America is against the law. But what exactly does this mean? It means that a free state is only possible when we the people insist on our right to be armed, not only as individuals, but as members of state militia. In the old world order, an order which prevailed in England, Germany, Russia, France, and other countries governed by monarchies, dictatorships, and oligarchies, only the sovereign, the state, was armed. In other words, the government claimed that only it had the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, such governments enslaved and murdered hundreds of millions of people over the centuries. In order to avoid this fate, the framers of the U.S. Constitution turned the old world order upside down. They created a new world order, where power was held by the subjects, not just the state. Thus, for the first time in history, the subjects became the sovereigns, and the government became the servant. The new world order that George Bush referred to was a global government whereby the major corporations of the world will control the global economy, which would require a global military to enforce along with global government. The new world order concerning our republic was a resistance to the globalistic approach to government that Europe had been exercising for many hundreds of years, previous to the formation of our country. Our modern leaders are trying to take us back to the old world order, because that's where we're headed. The founders realized that the only way the reversal could be maintained was if the people themselves were armed and well organized, for they understood that he who controls the weapons controls the political power. They also understood that any government, no matter how well-intentioned, has the potential to abuse political power, to go rogue or become tyrannical, enslaving or murdering its citizens, usually in the name of national security or some other necessity. It's simply the nature of the beast. Just like corporations are capable of trampling people for profits, governments are capable of trampling people for power. The primal nature of government is a topic which has captured my imagination for many years. Do we really want a government? Does anybody want a government at all? And the answer is, of course, you've got to have government, right? Otherwise, you have anarchy. But what does government mean? What does the government do? Well, the purpose of the government, by definition, is to govern. Does anybody want to be governed? I can't think of many people that want to be governed. And so maybe what we should be asking is, what is the proper function of the state? Let's use a different word, and things begin to be easier to analyze. The state doesn't have to be a government in the sense of governing people. When the American Republic was created, it really wasn't the government, even though our founding fathers called it that because that was the word they inherited from the old world. What they created was a protectorate. The purpose of our republic was to protect us, not to govern us, to protect our lives, our liberty and our property. And that was it. In my view, the proper function of the state is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens and nothing more. Given these immutable realities, the citizens of any country are wise to demand not only the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to be organized and well-trained in their effective use. Further, this is not some right bestowed by government itself. It's a natural right, a right bestowed by nature's God, the universe, or whatever one wants to call it. This right, as acknowledged in the Second Amendment, is an insurance policy. It's the only thing that guarantees a check and balance between citizens' rights and state power. It's the only thing that guarantees a free state. A free state is one in which the police understand that their police power is an extension of and emanates from the people themselves. And all the police are acting as agents for the people. They're not a class apart from the people. As the Second Amendment says, that a free state is based upon the ability of the people to provide for their own security. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and a well-regulated militia being, of course, composed of the people themselves exercising the right to keep and bear arms. Now on the other side, a police state would be one that essentially contradicts or neglects all of the principles of a free state. Rather, it is based upon some self-selected, self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing elite controlling that society through police tactics. And ultimately, police tactics are the imposition of the commands of the elite through force or the threat of force. But if the Second Amendment makes it clear that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, why do we have a police state forming around us? Are citizens becoming more unruly or violent? Crime statistics are down. One of the worst crime rates in America used to be Detroit, Michigan. But the police chief, James Craig, who I quote in my book, Are You a David? This is all in here. And he said that, crying is down in Detroit, criminals are finally getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon. So why are scenes like these happening across America? Police attacking a mother taking her kids to school, shooting a guy in a wheelchair, a guy with a pillbox, or shooting a child with a toy gun. A little black boy! Why are the police so trigger-happy? Why don't they stop applying force? Even when a citizen screams, I can't breathe 12 times. I can't breathe! I can't breathe! I can't breathe! The police state is the concept that the people are really the enemy. A police state grows apart from the Constitution, apart from any limits. And that's why you have SWAT teams coming to take care of situations that involve no hostage, no life-threatening situation. The excessive use of force could be stopped. We're offending officers convicted of police brutality and given serious sentences. But when was the last time you saw a rogue law enforcement officer get anything but a slap on the wrist? If the Attorney General were to reprimand rogue police for brutality, we'd have a situation that would involve the Department of Justice enforcing some of the specific criminal laws of the United States against those rogue police officers. And two come to mind immediately, Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 241 and 242. Those particular provisions deal with violations of civil rights under color of law. So they would clearly reach activities by rogue public officials acting in some police capacity because the police are always acting in some way under color of law. Those civil rights would include rights such as the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, which tend to be the categories of rights that rogue police officials infringe upon. Now what's interesting about those two provisions is the seriousness of the penalties they're involved. Both of them state that a violation of civil rights where death results to the victim is punished by life imprisonment or the death penalty. So given that many of the episodes of police brutality that occur in this country in fact do involve the death of the victim, you're talking about extremely serious penalties that could be applied in those situations. And Section 241 of Title 18 refers directly to conspiracies to violate civil rights. So that would tend to bring in the situation where within some police department you had policies, practices, training or whatever that was leaving the individuals to engage in violations of civil rights on the streets. And that would then cause those people who were in policy making decisions to be subject to criminal prosecution, which of course would deter that kind of action institutionally. It seems as if public officials are not even trying to stop police brutality. In fact, it seems as if they're training and deploying police for more of it. It definitely is to get us used to a military presence amongst us on a regular basis so that we're comfortable with it and we accept it. I would say that a police state was seen on Plyb-Undy's ranch when the BLM came in with a SWAT team to collect what they thought were grazing fees owed to their agency. That is a police state mentality. The families told us that they're wisdom that we must be the militia, right? It is necessary for the security of a free state. You will not be secure, you will not be free without it. Places like Fort AP Hill, which were built to train soldiers for urban warfare in Iraq, now contain mocked-up American towns, complete with fire hydrants and handicapped parking slips. When the Boston bombing happened and they were searching house to house, going through Watertown, Massachusetts, and dragging Americans out of their homes at gunpoint, that was an example of a police state. And of course, in the end, who found the fugitive, the accused bomber? It was a homeowner who happened to notice that his cover for his butt was out of place, went and looked in the back and saw the guy. That's how he was located. None of that heavy-handed, militarized, rolling down the street in armored carriers and pointing guns at everybody. None of that did any good whatsoever to find him. Is all this preparation for the war on terror? Or are the powers that be trying to acclimate we, the people, into accepting an increasingly militarized police presence for some other reason? The answers to these questions may be all around us. There certainly is evidence that someone is trying to acclimate average Americans to an increasingly paramilitarized police presence and police activities that could be described as martial law, because we see this is what is in fact happening. Automatic rifles, camouflage outfits, armored personnel carriers, you go down that list. So we're seeing this more and more, but you ask the question, well, why would it be happening? The answer is, well, someone wants this result in the sense that someone wants these police agencies to be capable of functioning this way and in fact wants them to be functioning this way if it does not result in there being prosecuted either civilly or criminally. Since 9-11, over $5 trillion has been spent on the so-called war on terror. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States quickly ushered through Congress only four days after the attacks. The Patriot Act has spawned thousands of laws ostensibly aimed at increasing national security. It is becoming obvious that there must be a lot of money going into it because if everybody's a terrorist or potential terrorist, you go to the airports and everyone's treated as such. There's an endless amount of ideas available to those who want to call out the terrorist card and use whatever means they can in order to gain more business from the business of terrorists. To this end, the Patriot Act has also spawned endless departments, agencies, protocols, tactics, industries, technologies, weapons, and a mind-boggling surveillance state that eviscerates the Fourth Amendment. Checking people's library records, the NSA wiretapping and listening in on everybody's computer facts and cell phone transactions. The Patriot Act, one of the worst laws in American history, one of the stupidest laws in American history, one of the most tyrannical laws in American history, one of the most destructive laws in American history to our personal freedoms, and they promised us they wouldn't use any of these tactics that they were allowed to do and wanting to use to go against terrorists that they weren't going to use any of that against American citizens. So far, that's all they've used it again. In Bluffdale, Utah, the federal government recently completed a one million square foot data center that can store a quadrillion gigabytes of personal emails and phone calls. I ask where are we going to stop that? Every sheriff in America, every cop in America, should tell the federal government you're not going to do that in my jurisdiction. And we know now this for a fact because Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower, exfiltrated thousands of documents from the spy masters at the NSA. The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyzes them and it measures them and it stores them. People in numerous occasions would come up to me and they'd say, I know Ron, you want to defend civil liberties, but we're under attack and we have to sacrifice our liberties. It was that attitude that the congressman responded. Not only that is, there were people in Congress for many years before the Patriot Act was passed that had plans for this, but they never had the incentive to do it. They never could get the support from the people. So it was the mood of the times, people willing to sacrifice their liberties for a sense of security. But Benjamin Franklin was very clear, if you sell out your liberty for security, you end up with neither. And unfortunately that's where we are today. Road politicians have been seizing and searching Americans' papers and effects in a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, which says people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have the technology now to literally monitor every single action and every transaction, every conversation. Everything that the American public are doing and the Patriot Act opened the door to a lot of that technology being utilized in ways that were unimaginable 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Snowden's revelations also proved that major U.S. corporations have sold out to road politicians to facilitate NSA spying on American citizens. All in the name of security, supposedly justified by the necessities of a war on terror. What Edward Snowden did was to reveal things that were going on in our government that were not designed to protect America from her enemies. They were designed to give the government power over the people of America not to give the government power over her enemies. And that's the thing that Edward Snowden picked up on. And that is what, in my view, made him a whistleblower and a hero. It may come as a surprise to road politicians in the District of Columbia and New York City but the Patriot Act is not superior to the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and all of its amendments. This comes out of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in Article 6 which states this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made by the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and only those acts that are carried out pursuant to are legitimate and considered law. As we fully explored in an earlier film, Molan Labe, the Supreme Court has found that, one, there is nothing in the Constitution that does not have legal import. Two, any law or statute that does not conform to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution is null and void. There is nothing that is meaningless. There is nothing that is superfluous. There is nothing that is temporarily bound in the sense that it applied in the past but doesn't apply today. And there is nothing that is capable of being set aside or disregarded on the basis of some other purported law. Now, if you ask why people would question in some sense the legal import or the continuing legal import of parts of the Constitution, my answer would be is, well, they're trying to get around those provisions in some way. Not only has the Fourth Amendment come under serious attack, so has the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in Ex parte Siebold assures us that any unconstitutional law is void. Thus, any gun control legislation that attempts to infringe upon a citizen's right to keep and bear arms is also null and void. This is a cautionary tale about what happens when the Democrats completely lay down on an issue and let the right get whatever they want. You get insanity. Well, Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that an unconstitutional act is not a law and is null and void from inception and imparts no duties and obligations and refusal to comply with it incurs no penalties. Things like background checks, waiting periods, bans on guns or accessories are unconstitutional. You don't see any authority for Congress to be passing any type of gun control law. Stand your ground, guns in bars, guns in church, guns in the classroom. Where does it end? Why not guns in the delivery room? What if my fetus is armed and comes out firing? Even Congress and the President of the United States may not use necessities like the so-called war on terror to justify violations of the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Still, as clear as the Constitution is, rogue politicians appealing to bogus necessities have fathered bastard legislation like the Patriot Act. On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil except for one Sunday in 1941. And to add insult to injury, the crowning jewel of this act, the Department of Homeland Security, has been modeled after Heinrich Himmler's RSHA, a system aimed at incorporating all Nazi police departments under the control of what they called the Department of National Security. Sound familiar? You have to go back to the Nazi Party and the way it was structured. There was a guy named Reinhardt Galen, and he was a one-star general that was in charge of operations in the East, Germany spying on the Soviets. As soon as he was brought to the United States immediately after, they created the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and it was modeled exactly after Galen's organization. It was the precursor to the Modern Homeland Security Act that came about after 9-11. The goal being to gain influence and ultimately control over the way state and local law enforcement agencies operate. That is, if you will, the European pattern to a large extent, the Asian pattern throughout history of a ministry of the interior which controls the entire police structure throughout the country. That clearly has never been in the past the American system of providing security. So it's a fundamental change from our system under the Constitution and ultimately under the Declaration of Independence. In short, the Patriot Act originated by rogue politicians that have no respect for the U.S. Constitution is transforming America from a free state into a police state. They're mercenary forces. They're hired by the oligarchs running these giant cities as an extension of the Republican and Democratic parties in those regions and they work for the bosses. None of them live in the communities that they police. Well, that's what a mercenary is. So, you know, it's time that the American people, I think, woke up and realized and recognized that that's what we've fallen into. Military police state, it's already here. And this police state opens the door to something as radical as full-blown martial law unless enough Americans become aware of the situation and resist it before rogue politicians invoke some necessity in the name of national security. We certainly have become a police state and it's all a desire that people want to feel safe and secure. In order to do this they have to sacrifice their liberty and also it's extended to not only safety from outside sources they want us to be safe from ourselves and once they want to make us safe and secure by regulating our behavior then there's nothing left for liberty and that's where we are today. We live in a police state both because they want to regulate our personal behavior, they regulate the economy and of course it's extended and we think we have the moral authority to regulate and to police the world and that's why we're in a mess we are in today. All this raises the question, is the war on terror the real reason the power elites are building the police state? Or is there some other reason? To answer this, let's put the war on terror into perspective. According to the National Counterterrorism Center and the government accounting office the US government spends over $160 billion a year on the war on terror. Internationally about 1,900 people are killed every year by terrorist acts. Of these about 70 people are Americans. But each year about 140 Americans die from peanut allergies fully twice the number killed by terrorism. Yet there is no war on peanuts. Obviously the war on terror cannot be the sole reason the power elite is spending all this money. So if not, what are they trying to protect us from? Future Katrina's, pandemics, global warming, comets and meteor collisions, nuclear war, ET invasions? If we examine those types of crises and we ask the question what kind of preparation would be made for those types of events? Well it would be moving into place heavy equipment to deal with the destruction that was caused by the storm. It would be moving into place medical facilities to deal with people who were injured or people who were suffering from an epidemic. Preparations would be obviously justifiable. We would sense or agree with the logic and reasons for such actions. Now that's not what we see. The emphasis coming out of the Department of Homeland Security is not on the provision of those kinds of services. It is instead emphasizing paramilitarization of state and local police and the integration of state and local police to a large extent with the upper echelons of the government of Washington D.C. that is the Department of Homeland Security itself and the regular army or the National Guard. The real reason for the preparations must be something potentially so bad it would create chaos and widespread civil unrest. Well now what might that be? Well it could easily be a breakdown of the national economy because of a collapse of the banking and financial structure. That would lead to massive amounts of social dislocations, civil unrest and civil disobedience probably throughout the country. Recall 2008 when the financial system almost totally melted down. What if there is an even worse crash because bankers, financial magnates and public officials have done little or nothing to stem the debt caused by the fiat currency system? A failure of the entire global banking system led by the collapse of the dollar might very well be the reason we see the police state build up. And if they were to collapse, I mean completely collapse there would be economic chaos around the world. We are moving in the direction of an economic totalitarianism if the system is not changed drastically that's the kind of assistance that we will be in. Might this be why the power elite is training and organizing men in black uniforms at every level of government? Why else would they be stocking up on hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? For them to buy a billion and a half rounds of hollow point rounds of ammunition I mean there aren't enough foreign terrorists on the soil. You don't use anti-personnel ammunition for target practice because it's more expensive. You buy another kind of cheaper ammunition and so the only thing we can draw from that is that somehow the government wants to be able to effectively kill people when it shoots them. Now if they actually were after terrorists I wouldn't have any problem with that but since we've found that they are not really serious about dealing with terrorists and protecting the borders of the country then the assumption has to be that we the people are the enemy. How could the global bankers not be aware that their fiat currency debt dependent banking system is little more than a ticking time bomb? How could they not be worried about a crash? With an 18 trillion dollar national debt over 200 trillion dollars in unfunded government liabilities and a global monetary base over 400 trillion Federal Reserve notes how could they not be absolutely terrified about the Keynesian global monster they have created? Keynesian economics is nothing but baloney and they think if they put some figures into a computer and make some unbelievably complex ridiculous calculation they can predict the future and they've never been right. But one is a planned economy and authoritarian economy and it works for a while because it's based on borrowing money and debt and controls and eventually though it always fails just as socialism always fails. Mises the great Austrian economist predicted socialism can't work and the Soviet system would collapse and he was absolutely right on this. Also the Keynesian system which is not quite communist fascist but a lot of intervention what we practice it's destined to fail too. The creation of the Federal Reserve was the vehicle by which our unconstitutional money system was allowed to perpetuate itself in this country. We were at that point taken off of sound money principles no longer would precious metals be the formation of our economic system. But now then we authorized a private cabal of international bankers the most of whom are not even citizens of the United States and they have been given complete carte blanche to do with the economy of the United States pretty much as they see fit. The power elite has a serious problem. A banking system crash will undoubtedly be blamed on them because after all it was they who created it. We do know a matter of fact that they met in secret in Jekyll Island at JP Morgan's hunting lodge and they developed this current Federal Reserve system it was made up of very wealthy bankers and they devised this private banking cartel or cabal. Given this their problem becomes how do they survive a crash and not be stripped of their economic and political power? The answer would logically follow use the trillions they have printed to finance a police state to protect themselves in the aftermath of a crash. Thus the war on terror provides the cover to justify the enormous expenditures to do just this. In the event of civil unrest in this country a person who is in current service who considers themselves an oath keeper would be under an absolute obligation and duty to refuse to go along with and to resist. The only mechanism the Constitution considers for domestic emergencies is the militia. As it says here in Article 1 Section 8 the Congress has the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union suppress insurrections and repel invasions. So in the event of domestic civil unrest or emergencies if they're going to call up any force if the national government is going to allow anyone to do anything in the United States using military force to preserve the peace or public order it would be the militia itself. Imagine the power elite upon realizing that their banking system is going to crash comes before the American public and says we're really sorry about the fraudulent fiat currency Ponzi scheme we built but it's evident that our Federal Reserve system is going to crash. We thus need several trillion dollars from you the people to build a police state so that we can protect ourselves from your rage once you have lost everything in the ensuing meltdown. The idea of the Federal Reserve system or the banking system collapsing and then imagining what it would be like is kind of a scary thing because we know that we depend on the banking system and the Federal Reserve to create the money supply. So the direct answer is there would be chaos if everything collapsed. When the authority structure in society breaks down someone else will try to assert authority so you may have authority being asserted from the ground up by rioters and looters in a really primitive fashion. You may have public officials attempting to reassert authority from the top down through martial law or some other form of repressing or suppressing whatever you want to use the population and then you'll have people in the middle that will be not sure which way they want to go and then that will then lead to a kind of flux in society in which all sorts of lawlessness can take place. The power elite needs not only their buddies in government but their buddies in the mainstream media. Thus the New York and Hollywood brainwashing machine never stops beating out the mantra of war on terror and America under attack. In how to combat worldwide terrorists it's in my opinion you have to kill them. I believe you have to kill the jihadists so you don't believe that we should be killing jihadist leaders. We are creating more terrorists. You have to look at the big picture. But drone attacks that kill the leadership of the al-Qaeda and the Taliban are permissive. In other words war on terror equals necessity of police state. Never does banking system melt down equal necessity of police state. All the while the fiat currency money system is never mentioned in the mainstream media. Liberals like it because they can direct the spending and they don't have to worry about deficits and they can borrow money to the hill for all their social programs. But somebody would say well conservatives are different they're for balanced budgets. Actually they're not. They like it because they want the money and the debt to serve the military and take care of their military industrial complex friends. And so they both like it but the same reason it permits expansion of government and abuse of spending and borrowing and inflation because on the short run it looks good. It's just like you or I if we could go out and borrow a million dollars a month we would be doing very well until maybe at the end of the first year the bank said well you have to start paying it back. Well country has to eventually start paying it back one way or the other. You don't usually really pay it back but they have to pay it back by depreciating the currency and that's what we're involved in right now. The $400 trillion monetary base of fraud and debt back paper doesn't even exist. Instead day and night somewhere on some TV network the mantra of police crime, Islam and war on terror is pounded into the post 9-11 American psyche. Evening news on mainstream networks thus typically involve endless scenes of police shooting blacks National Guard herding protesters SWAT teams kicking in doors and other authorities carrying out many displays of martial law. There are two types of vice presidents dormats and matadors which do you think I intend to be? You have two kinds of politicians that are considered rogue politicians one intentionally will violate the Constitution for personal reasons or for the reasons of special interest groups who lobby him to vote certain ways of bill. The other type of rogue politician who simply is ignorant about the Constitution a rogue politician who doesn't understand the Constitution may have every good intention and yet still violate the Constitution and any violation of the Constitution is part of the definition of a rogue politician. MSNBC takes you behind the walls for America's most notorious prisons. Every weekend MSNBC drops its regularly scheduled programming and subjects us to a slew of documentaries depicting life in the prison industrial complex and the major studios in Hollywood do their part as well for almost every one of their futuristic movies depicts a totalitarian police state complete with martial law. And all this is made as normal and legitimate as Apple Pie. Movies like Elysium, The Hunger Games, Minority Report, Dark City, District 9, Escape from LA, Judge Dredd, Metropolis, Robocop and Total Recall endlessly depict a society that has succumbed to the police state and martial law. Images do affect human behavior. This has been well known and well established and the research has documented and proven over and over again. So why do they spend millions in advertising to get people to do what the corporations want them to do which is by their widget, by their car, by their whatever it is they're selling. The movie industry effectively sends a message that martial law is inevitable and we have no other choice than to acquiesce to it. Movies have become actually pretty boring because they're all violent right now. Just complete bloodlust and like the military industrial complex. It has just escalated more and more. I find it completely creating a bizarre reality if you will because I don't really see them as reality and if they are, if that is reality that is pretty frightening to me. All this Huxley was a British socialist and he had a projection of how socialism might go wrong in the future and it bothered him to the point that he wrote the novel Brave New World. In five years time you will die. And so it would seem to me that the liberals in the media and in Hollywood are concerned with something that they realize is a problem with them. They're the ones that are developing the police state in order to enforce their cancerous growth of regulation governing what just routine things that average people do every day. Thank you for your service. Yes the Hollywood propaganda machine endlessly abets the globalist agenda because it validates the police state legitimizes martial law advances the myth of terrorism and obfuscates the criminals in the federal reserve system and corporations that surround them. They influence the press they influence the radio and television and they can shape the entire dialogue on everything that happens in our country and they can do that because the special interests that have the money that want to control what's going on in this country can do that. The mainstream media promotes and facilitates anything the globalists and their lapdog governments want. The government is trying to test out reverting to a King George's government it's presenting us with all of these foreign laws things that seems like they could be somewhere in the future if we're not careful but they're actually being rolled out now it's as if they're in a hurry to get something done. The top advertising clients of the mainstream media are many of the same corporations that service the military industrial complex big pharma's drugs and the federal reserve's fiat currency keep them drug in debt and fighting wars that seems to be the purpose of the mainstream media it's sponsors and government cohorts it's not so much that the owners of the the networks or the movie studios issue directives to the producers and writers and say this is what we want you to convey they just see what succeeds and what fails and there's no doubt that those movies which produce themes that are contrary to the traditional American way of life they all get funded they get promoted and so forth writers and producers see that and they just know by following example that they want to succeed they have to do more of the same Thanks to a redefinition of the word speech we the people now enjoy less democratic control over the frenzy of mergers and acquisitions that have consolidated over 50 media companies into just six multinational corporations the point is it's a very very small select elitist cabal of people that for the most part control virtually everything that the American people watch on a screen or listen to on a broadcast are controlled by a very very small handful of people that's the point is it any wonder the average American is so brainwashed and confused about politics in America they keep voting for the same double-faced political party or they don't even bother to vote at all the positive has been the advent of the internet for all of the garbage that's on the internet we probably would have lost our freedoms years ago the internet has allowed the free flow of information in the modern age very similarly to the committees of correspondence in colonial America they could not get their news from the British government they could not get their news from the governors and so forth that represented the British government within the colonies and so they started their own printing presses they started their own newspapers right on horseback and deliver these pieces of information to the citizenry we should all thank God for the internet because it allows us to communicate with one another circumventing completely the small cabal that's controlling the major news that we see on television let's take a closer look at something one will never see on the mainstream news channels the history of martial law martial law comes from the idea of emergency powers emergency powers were used in the old world order to ensure the enslavement of populations for instance in 1920 the United Kingdom enacted an emergency powers act to give the king even more power than he already had the power to declare a state of emergency and suspend all normal laws the Nazis and Soviets had their own versions of emergency powers and they used them to oppress and kill millions of their citizens now the basic concept there is that public officials claim that when some emergency arises an emergency defined by them of course that they are entitled to exercise powers that they would not normally be entitled to exercise in the absence of that emergency and typically this results in the emergency power in one way or another overriding some existing limitation in the constitution or in the Bill of Rights in particular so what we have is a claim that the exercise of powers of that kind is necessary for instance article 48 of the Weimar Constitution allowed President Hitler to take any sort of emergency measures he felt necessary on any particular day no consent from his parliament or the people even needed specifically article 48 gave a mechanism by which the president could step outside and issue emergency ordinances by the lower house of the legislature but nevertheless that was a dangerous element in the Weimar Constitution and proved of course to be its downfall with use of that emergency ordinances almost to the degree that regular legislation was used and we're seeing signs of that in our country now with this concept of people thinking well gee I can just rule by decree and of course when the Reichstag building burned down Hitler considered this his own personal 9-11 so what did he do? he used the fire to justify more emergency legislation and eventually was able to have all his real or imagined terrorists shot the framers of our constitution recognized that even a very explicit limited type of emergency power such as finally appears in the Weimar Constitution was too dangerous to put into a constitution that was going to be the supreme law of the land either the constitution would be the supreme law of the land or someone interpreting an emergency powers provision would act as if he were the supreme law of the land and that's why we see no emergency powers provision in the constitution and with the absence of an emergency powers provision in the constitution there can be no emergency powers acts or statutes or executive orders or other actions of that kind taken 9-11 is being used to justify all kinds of excessive government measures to take away the rights of American citizens everywhere you look you see government edicts and decrees and legislation coming down the pike in the name of protecting us from terrorists the Patriot Act it's emergency powers it's executive orders are being issued all focused back to 9-11 Stalin in a slightly different management style from Hitler simply kept his country in a constant state of emergency this way he could invoke emergency powers anytime he wanted and justify them with any necessity at all and this worked out well by starving and imprisoning millions of his citizens he was able to solve all his problems quite nicely there are those who have high positions in the government who want to see our system converted from a state which has very limited powers for the government they want to see it converted from that to an unlimited state a totalitarian state if you will with those people themselves in control and they know that the American people will never sit still for that unless they're scared unless they're convinced that they have to do that in order to protect themselves from all of these terrible things the point is this there are no emergency powers in the U.S. Constitution the founders knew they would be abused because every government from the Roman Empire to King George and Stalin abused them the only powers the government has are those in the Constitution itself enumerated in the Constitution and our Constitution is already geared and already set up to handle any kind of so-called emergency so you have, for example you have the militia clause Article 1 Section 8 Congress has the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union to suppress insurrections and to repel invasions and that's the military physical emergency clause even though it doesn't even say emergencies that's what you do in case of any of those things there was no need for emergency powers to be written into the U.S. Constitution the Constitution was forged during the worst emergency imaginable the aftermath of war with the largest superpower on earth Great Britain after experiencing this the founders did not want to give the new American government any ability to act like another King George we just cannot sit back and allow our government to trade away the freedoms and the liberties that our forebears fought so valiantly to bequeath to us it is the obligation of each generation to defend liberty for itself and should not be abrogated by any generation of Americans and nothing has changed to this very day we the people can solve any emergency using the Constitution because the U.S. Constitution provides for the continuous solution to emergencies when properly applied and amended from time to time no emergency powers needed with this in mind let's now look at martial law the usual fruit of emergency powers you know we read a lot in the popular press as well as the serious press and the scholarly press and the military press about martial law one of the things that is almost as dangerous as the abhorrence of talking about some things in a casual sense is talking about it without determining what exactly you mean by it the beginning of a serious discussion of a serious issue is creating a taxonomy defining what you mean in brief there are four types of martial law two could be said to be utilitarian one is little more than treason and the last is potentially healing the first kind of martial law is the law used by the army and navy for their own members this kind of martial law does not apply to civilians Article 1, Section 8, clauses 14 and 16 of the Constitution provide explicitly for that Congress has given the power to provide rules and regulations for the governance of the army and the navy and then of the militia when the militia are in the service of the United States simply strictly military law exercised or imposed on the members of our army and navy as we may have an army or navy in the United States for their duration of their duty in that capacity the second kind of martial law is only used in zones of actual warfare where all civilian authorities have been destroyed or driven out the justification for this type of martial law is that if the enforcement of civilian law is impossible some other form of order should be set up for the benefit of the few civilians who cannot be evacuated when we saw it happen during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans it was used horribly and unconstitutional and immoral and then after the bombing situation in Boston after the marathon or during the marathon the police used house to house searches and declared or acted like they declared martial law martial law is used in times of war if you're dealing with a combat zone an area in which there is actual military combat and there might be some civilians still scattered in that area in the rear areas adjacent to it then martial law that is law enforced by the military authorities on the scene would be essentially the only way to maintain law and order in that particular area and so it would be justified on that basis the third kind of martial law is not legitimate such martial law would be imposed by rogue politicians who would attempt to deploy the armed forces to oppress common Americans in the name of national security or some other necessity guns will be taken no one will be able to be armed that happened today in this wealthy neighborhood where homeowners had armed themselves to protect their mansions such an action is actually an attempt to suspend the second amendment this is treason because as we have seen throughout history every time a government has disarmed its citizens for any reason or any necessity those citizens are rendered defenseless against the police powers of the state the unlawful use of military force be it either the army of the United States or Navy of the United States to execute something outside of the law in place of the regular course of the law and the fact that serious military people in military circles are contemplating and creating doctrine and in exercises is truly alarming unfortunately some people simply don't pay attention to history in just the past century over 171 million disarmed citizens have been murdered by their good and trustworthy governments the claim of some military institution to set itself up as independent and superior to the constitution and laws of the country has absolutely no basis in our constitution and in fact it was one of the major claims in the Declaration of Independence against King George III that he had attempted to do precisely that that was in violation of the laws of nature and of nature's god and justified the 13 original colonies in declaring independence from Britain to wit he has effected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power end quote meaning if King George could place his military law above civilian law every form of tyranny could and would follow thus as noted earlier the colonists made no provisions in the US Constitution for any sort of emergency powers that could invoke martial law or bypass civilian law it's just not in the document and no American alive today should believe that anything has changed we the people still live under the same constitution that detests and protects us against martial law we learn about martial law from the movies and the media we're going to learn the idea as it has come from those who want to keep a grandizing government power every kitten grows up to be a cat they seem so harmless at first but once their claws get long enough they draw blood martial law in their view can be applied the rule of the military can be applied anytime they declare an emergency no, no, no your court order does not allow we're killing a cattle in the late 1700s William Blackstone the founder's legal mentor provided the most complete exposition of English law available to colonial Americans in these works Blackstone was highly critical of martial law but one place he stated quote the raising of armies and the regulation of the soldiery should be looked upon only as temporary and not as any part of the permanent and perpetual laws of the kingdom for martial law is entirely arbitrary in its decisions one definition of martial law is it's no law at all it's this military force martial law of the third kind is illegal because it negates the supreme law of the land only the constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that does not align with and support it is as we saw earlier null and void all of the laws that have grown out of the 9-11 attacks we have now the department of homeland security we've got the patriot act we've got the military commissions act we've got NDAA we've got a growing police state on every level our SWAT teams today are behaving more like the war zone soldiers than they are police officers in a free republic it is never God's will it has never been a Christian doctrine that Christian people submit to tyranny and it is the duty of Christians and non-Christians alike to recognize martial law for what it is it is the antithesis of everything our founding fathers fought and died to protect us from so in summary all of colonial history supports the conclusion that martial law is arbitrary and risky the constitution does not provide for any emergency powers acts the constitution does not provide for any laws to set it aside or suspend it martial law is thus utterly prohibited and a direct contradiction of the constitution's legal supremacy even the president of the united states is not authorized to implement martial law he has no legal authority to make any laws or set aside any laws especially the US constitution if there was a declaration of martial law by the president by governors or whoever it would be anyone in current service with their military police who considers themselves an oath keeper would be under an absolute obligation to refuse to obey any such order martial law is the absolute destruction of our republic Stuart you're damn good those of us that took it we pretty much live with it our whole life don't we absolutely that's how we see it as it never expires it's the oath that we took I took it when I was 18 years old served as a paratrooper in the army an oath keeper is a person who understands that his oath to the constitution is a sacred obligation the oath is to the constitution itself the paper not the government that came out of that paper the paper itself that oath would prevent any servicemen any military personnel any police or sheriffs from violating the bill of rights or the other protections embodied in the constitution it's interesting that when Abraham Lincoln imposed martial law in 1863 and this was in the middle of a war the supreme court later ruled that it was unconstitutional this brings us to the fourth kind of martial law the fourth kind of martial law is civilian law applied specifically by those martial institutions known as the militia of the several states article 1 section 8 clause 15 gives the militia of each state the power to execute the laws of the union suppress insurrections and repel invasions the constitution does not grant the army or the navy the authority to execute the laws of the union the army and navy only have the authority to execute the laws pertaining to their respective services article 1 section 8 clause 15 Congress will provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union why do I call that martial law because generally speaking you could say martial law is where somebody of law is being executed being enforced by a martial institution well the militia are martial institutions at least to a large degree and here the constitution gives the militia the authority and responsibility to execute the laws of the union now what's interesting about this category of martial law is that term the laws of the union we're not talking about the militia executing some laws that are outside of the constitution outside of the constitutional statutes enacted by congress but enacting or executing the constitution and those statutes so this is actually a form of martial law in name which is really civilian law in character except being enforced by the militia because the circumstances would warrant the usefulness of the militia for that purpose again only state militias may execute the laws of the union we have the militia of the several states or the militia of one state executing the laws of the union or of a state when they are opposed by violent combinations too powerful for the regular course of the law and that can happen under the constitution of a state or in the case of as the constitution says repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections executing the laws of the union that can happen in a federal capacity moreover as the constitution mandates the militia are required to execute all of the laws of the union including the constitution itself thus this form of martial law would always preserve a republic under the constitution never impose some dictatorship or oligarchy unlike martial law imposed by distant armed forces to repress people they did not know in places they never lived martial law centered on the militia would always involve local militiamen familiar with the local population and local conditions the militia made up of citizens from throughout the community was a much better process than to utilize police or military force to enforce laws because it was created by people that live in the community their members of the community their citizens within that community and so the laws were designed to be local by nature and that they would work within the community to provide the minimal but the necessary amount of law to function as a civil community thus to a large extent the members of the militia would be policing themselves unfortunately a well regulated militia of the constitutional pattern does not exist in a single state today the rogues tyrants and bankers who are more interested in bringing about globalization than maintaining a free american republic have slowly segued we the people away from the militia system democracy is so overrated the destruction of the constitutional militia of the several states really begins in 1903 at that point congress created a distinction between what it called the organized militia and what eventually came to call the unorganized militia the organized militia it identified with the national guard the unorganized militia was everybody else now the purpose of this operation was to remove most people from active participation in any form of militia organization the unorganized militia essentially does nothing at all but the national guard does not have the characteristics of a constitutional militia first and foremost the national guard is not a near universal compulsory membership organization where the national guard actually fits into the constitution is article one section ten clause three which states that no state may keep troops or ships of war in time of peace without the consent of congress national guard is the statutory structure by which the states and congress have come to an agreement as to how the states will maintain their own troops or ships of war in time of peace and what that does with the national guard is to make it an adjunct to the regular army hurry up! let's go, let's go, let's go stop right there carry it back the national guard is part of the standing army and that's why the national guard went off to world war one whereas the militia could not be called upon to go off as part of the army so the goal of this operation by the people that set it up was to increase the size of the reserve forces to be available for the regular armed forces to be called upon when they believed that America should become involved in foreign military adventures of one party or another and on the other hand to push everyone else into this unorganized category which would in fact reduce the ability of everyone else to participate and influence the martial activities if you will of this country and of their various states those militia were actually functioning very large numbers of people participating influencing the process being concerned of what was going on paying attention influencing their public officials in the executive branch and in the legislature that would be really more of what I would call a ferment of political involvement of people now there is none of that and the great problem of this is that it leaves all of those people in the unorganized militia unprepared for the various crises calamities really catastrophes that you can imagine that would threaten the security of free state they have also segued us away from the gold standard so they could literally print up the money to finance their police state in the name of the war on terror these actions must be reversed but who will reverse them who will challenge the globalists and their agenda of a one world totalitarian state this question actually becomes one of who will reject martial law of the third kind were it ever declared if children don't get the message about what a free society is all about they'll grow up not knowing about it and that's one of our problems that we've had over the years I think it's changing this is where I'm an optimist I think people have easier access to alternatives through the internet and homeschooling and also they're being exposed and I know young people are very fascinated with Austrian economics and reading about the Federal Reserve so this is crucial that young people hear from here and for me why it works is I think we all have a natural instinct we want to take care of ourselves and be free people and the system that we've had whether it's the schools or the movies or the news or the books and all it all teaches us to conform you aren't compelled to loan your car to anyone who wants it but you are compelled to surrender your school aged child to strangers who possess children for a livelihood even though one in every nine school children is terrified of physical harm happening with good cause we found a disturbing number of recent school shooters were either on medication or were experiencing withdrawal instead of encouraging individualism they encourage collectivism they teach people that rights coming groups and these various things so to me it's crucial that the young people have this opportunity and they're very open to it and I see so many teenagers that come to rallies and come to my office and they're really excited about the issue of liberty because it is exciting especially when you find out if you're really interested in peace and prosperity which everybody claims this is a real option what we have in our governments today and in the establishment media there's no opportunity to promote these views Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer of Abedience often the advance of civilization is dreamt up by men of words executed by fanatics and administered by practical men of action probably in the realm of one to three percent of the population are always the leaders the movers and shakers that make anything happen in history the other 97 to 99 percent of the people go along with their leaders they go along with the rabble routers they go along with whatever seems to be successful they'll say well that's what I'm for so I think it's important for us to realize that especially today when we get discouraged and thinking how will we ever get 51 percent of the people to support such and such a concept 51 percent of the people will never do it and never have and never will what we need is that 3 percent or less of well informed well intentioned people have no axe to grind except to preserve the liberty of themselves and their fellow citizens to get united and to get moving to become active on whatever social or political reform is necessary because that 3 to 1 percent of the population can do it and in fact they always have done it and they always will The American Revolution was an anomaly for there were many more patriots than in most mass movements the patriots who hoffer would term fanatics comprised about 50 percent of the colonial population these people thirsted for constitutional principles and had a fanatical desire to oppose the loyalists about 23 percent of the columnists who remained loyal to the tyranny of King George along with these two opposing groups the loyalists and the patriots there was a third group consisting of about 27 percent of the columnists these people were neutral what we would call fence sitters or what sociologists refer to as the attend east most people tend to not want to make waves etc unfortunately where we are in our society today we can no longer afford that luxury the powers it be and the forces it be are themselves pushing the envelope against the principles of freedom every day every day we seem to be losing more and more of our god given liberties every day our constitutional safeguards seem to be slipping away from us every day the bill of rights is trampled or ignored by the powers that be and for citizens to take a wait and see approach now is to in essence go along with tyranny and allow evil to triumph given the history of mass movements and especially American history it's interesting to speculate as to who would comply with the Marcher law were it ever widely declared today who would support the oath keepers and who would support the oath breakers basically two groups of people would oppose re-ritalization of the constitutional militia the first group would be composed of average citizens who simply didn't want to participate they didn't want to go to the militia training exercise two or three times a year they didn't want to acquire the basic equipment necessary to perform whatever militia functions they might be assigned there's a second group that would oppose re-vitalization of the militia and to understand who they are you have to look at the first 13 words of the second amendment a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state but want a free state in this country clearly would be rabid opponents of anything having to do with re-vitalization of the militia even talking about the militia they would oppose what is a free state a free state is one that's characterized by popular sovereignty the people govern themselves and ultimately they provide their own security through well-regulated militia they themselves exercise the right of the people to keep in their arms undoubtedly the group that would support martial law what could be called the new loyalists would most likely be the bankers and the corporations that rely heavily on bank loans the fiduciaries that sponge off these transactions the gun control lobby these are people who would be in the forefront and they in fact are in the forefront of opposing anything that has to do with militia enemies of the principle of a free state because remember the constitution does not say that a well-regulated militia is somehow optional that it's a good idea but we don't necessarily have to abide by that concept it says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state that's the only institution that the constitution says is necessary and it's not alone for that most important purpose the security of a free state journalists in the media and that would include Hollywood are going to be apologists for martial law because they have the same view as the bureaucrats and the politicians that make such laws that the American people need to be regulated regulated even down to minute detail and so when they see this kind of abuse that we have seen such as sending in a BLM SWAT team to collect money from a rancher in Nevada when the court system was never availed that's something that the media is not going to have a problem with and the rancher, I don't believe in the U.S. government rancher dragged this stuff up out of the far right rather pitiful fringe the next group what is traditionally known as the patriots would not in any way comply with the third kind of martial law these would refuse to comply because they know their constitution and they know their inalienable rights rights granted by the creator what's more these patriots would ideally be well armed and well trained because they also understand what the second amendment is about and how the malicious system fits into the plan set forth by the founding fathers the American government is different from every other form of government on this planet it is not hierarchical it is not about concentrating power in the hands of a central authority it's about the diffusion of power they set up multiple states that each was autonomous that had its own authority the town, the city, the county the federal government in that order the American government is set up to diffuse power not to concentrate it because as you concentrate power you concentrate the corruption that goes along with it the unfortunate thing is due to the incessant brainwashing from the New York based mainstream media the Hollywood based motion picture industry the cultural Marxist infested public school system academia and portions of the clergy as much as 80% of today's population may be fence sitters considering the fact that the movement of history is always directed by a small number of people yes the future is always bright for activists because the future is always won by activists the only question is who are the activists are they going to be people like us who want liberty and freedom and justice are the activists going to be another group of people that want control over society that's the only question which minority is going to win so if you are a man or woman of action the future is actually in your hands most others will do nothing not even oppose you it is hope that you would loudly and clearly declare your objection to martial law that you would resist martial law were it ever declared and for those new loyalists who would disagree with your stance it is hope that you would remind them to consider this famous little phrase if only Stalin knew the phrase if only Stalin knew refers to the letters people sent to Stalin even as they were being put into the cattle cars and taken away to slavery or their deaths these people couldn't believe the very gulag system they helped create that they were loyal to had turned on them so they naively wrote petitions to Stalin thinking that there must be some mistake if only Stalin knew he would correct the mistake but Stalin did know in fact it was he who put them, his loyal citizens into the cattle cars so I think that same mentality that we saw in Stalin's Russia were seen again in the United States today were that people are unwilling to hold their representative, their congressman their president, their senator accountable for the actions that are being done under their auspices and their authority everybody sees the results everybody experiences in one way or the other the results of what they established in the lawmaking process and yet when they come home to the people and whenever they're confronted in a town hall meeting or whatever the response is oh I don't know anything about that they do know what's going on Stalin did know what was going on and if you are a loyalist the globalists will probably act no differently towards you than Stalin did towards his loyalists imagine if citizens dared to disagree with the future being painted upon their retinas by the mainstream media we're living off this news cycle on the television and tanks are running down our streets this is not the way our government has been set up to operate and this is what this whole terrorism movement is doing so 80% of the people are going to be confused because they're being conditioned over time is we only trust the government we cannot fend for ourselves we cannot protect ourselves people have just fallen into this complacency of not asking questions to the government to ensure that we keep our liberty it's not free you have to work for it imagine if such citizens rejected the war of terror called for the end of police brutality and declared that they are no longer going along with the mantra of martial law endlessly spewed forth from the globalist's propaganda machine the national security agency collects 1.7 billion emails and telephone calls and stores them every single day the surveillance state and the police state are pretty much the same thing a police state has to have constant surveillance over all of the people so that they can monitor them and make sure they're doing exactly the right thing nobody's getting organized against them to sniff out all the opposition and squash it before it becomes a strong force that's what all police states do and it's obvious that this is not a good system to live in we have to get rid of it if we want to live in freedom if we want to live in harmony if we want to have security against the police state what's the point of worrying about being attacked from some totalitarian system across the ocean if in order to do so we have to build a totalitarian system right here at home the U.S. Constitution is the engine of a new world order introduced in 1776 this order reversed the ancient roles of citizens and sovereigns and made the old world order of despots and monarchs forever obsolete the breakaway was not only successful in establishing American independence and freedom but the Americans created a republic a new kind of government which served as a model and gradually expanded freedom to all of its citizens so America was a success it was an idea and it worked consequently the world would look to the best in America for leadership leadership based upon the ideals of liberty, equality and these ideals are embodied in the Declaration of Independence the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights now you think of the Constitution as a kind of legal structure it has certain columns that are supporting the structure Congress the executive branch the president the judiciary in their capacity as the electors the voters those are the four at the corners and then in the very center of this structure there are the well regulated militia which the Constitution itself tells us unnecessary to maintain the security of a free state that is to maintain the integrity of this structure against whatever threats might impinge upon it the only guarantee of a free people is eternal vigilance and a willingness to resist and fight what's going on it is an eternal battle and the truth is that Americans in some ways are less free than they have been in the past and I think they're going to have to do battle, political battle to get those freedoms back true security is a chore lovingly provided by we the people at local levels and how would they maintain that security and how we go back to the famous epigram political power grows out of the barrel of a gun maintaining political power depends upon maintaining that ultimate source of force in society so we're talking about maintaining populist sovereignty then it must be the people themselves who will have the power of the gun that will give them the ability to execute that political power in their own hands but as wise and secure as our constitutional system is the constitution itself acknowledges that even it can be perfected we are therefore always on a journey to form a more perfect union and with each perfection of the union America peacefully demonstrates an new that it is capable of accommodating an even wider universe of beliefs speech lifestyles and freedoms and even though Jefferson and Franklin and some of the other founders were not Christians in the traditional sense they all understood the principles of natural law given us by our creator and you see these wonderful ideas coming together and it challenged the thousands of years of world history and this dream based upon inalienable rights guaranteed by nature's god the deity or whatever higher force you want to call it is made possible by the unity of people and places over vast centuries of time and securing this unity is the second amendment and the militia clauses in the U.S. constitution so if we want to return the power of the sword to the people themselves the way that political philosophy tells us we must do this and the way that the constitution itself tells us we must do this in the second amendment is to bring back into active service revitalize we'll probably be the best term well regulated militia if the people are unorganized as militia then they cannot possibly exercise the power of militia and if they cannot exercise the power of militia then the power of the sword the ultimate political power in their society must rest in someone else's hands and if it rests in someone else's hands then the people are no longer living in a free state for freedom is the keynote and implicit in the idea of freedom is also the idea of freedom from freedom from excessive regulation and onerous laws freedom from predatory taxation debt slavery and forced insurance freedom from surveillance invasion and perpetual war in short freedom from the police and surveillance state ushered in by the patriot act and its spawn by having sovereign states with their own militias in the state we go back to what the founders intended if the president wants to execute the laws of the union he should have to call forth the militias of the civil states if they disagree they think it's unconstitutional act by either the congress or by the president they could simply refuse to deploy so that the federal government cannot step in and use military force against you without the consent and the approval and participation of the state militias and to guarantee the optimum freedom the biblical based black stone inspired US constitution has proven to be the most workable political philosophy so far created people comprised of immigrants from every nation belief and race melded together under a common philosophy and literally began the world over as thomas pain observed 240 years ago the cry in the heart of thomas pain the cry in the heart of jefferson washington patrick henry all of our founding fathers was that they wanted a free and independent nation whereby the people were the sovereigns of the country it was a historic reformation of thought and ideology the liberties and the freedoms of the people were more important than the opulence and the power of the rulers it was revolutionary it forever changed the old world and it brought into existence a true new world of freedom and liberty america can be restored to her first principles by revitalizing the militia of the several states a revitalized militia will provide better checks and balances between centralized federal power and local state power and if we the people control both the power of the purse and the power of the sword we can survive any catastrophe or change the choices are yours we need the second amendment more than ever the amendment that disarms rogue politicians bankers and mainstream media the amendment that arms we the people so we can continue to create an exceptional nation and lead by example not by force