Get Informed - Get Equipped - Get Inspired

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties...
when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved"
- Sam Adams

PayPalDonateNow

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Art Fed 65

Hamilton Silences Impeachment Fools

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

America’s media stream has been saturated by politicians, pundits, and law professors pontificating on what America’s founders’ believed about presidential impeachment.  The most oft used argument today is a misapplication and misleading representation of what founder Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist #65.  The claim is that Alexander Hamilton establishes in Federalist #65 that presidents should be “impeached for political reasons.  This is completely and obviously false to anyone who has read the essay and possesses a smidgen of reading comprehension skills.  I believe the people asserting this fake claim are confident that the American people won’t actually read this essay and call them out for their deceptions.  My goal is to show how simple and plainly written this text is and how blatantly deceptive these people are in their lie-driven agenda. (You can read Fed 65 here http://bit.ly/Fed65)

The overall assertion of these prevaricators is that Hamilton uses Federalist #65 to explain to the people what the Constitution says about the grounds for impeachment of presidents.  The very title of this document declares this to be false.  The document is titled, “The Powers of the Senate Continued.”  As the Federalist Papers are compiled by a series of topics, Federalist #65 falls in the set of essays explaining the powers delegated to the Senate.  What is interesting, in the very first paragraph Hamilton explains that this essay is NOT about the president, but the Senate, and a presidential series would be forthcoming.

“As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department.”

The second paragraph of this essay is the fertile ground used to harvest the agenda-driven propaganda of this present hour.  It is in this paragraph that we glean our best understanding of what Hamilton believed to be the greatest complications to a valid impeachment.  What Hamilton does NOT do in this paragraph, or in any paragraph in this essay, is define the terms of impeachment nor the unlimited power of the House to impeach a president for whatever allegation the majority can motivate their moiling mob to support.  What is interesting is, that Hamilton actually defeats that claim in the very paragraph these fabulists violently plunder.

Hamilton begins paragraph two by explaining that history proves it will be very difficult to pull together a fit body for the trying of impeachment.  Once you read Hamilton’s argument, not only does his logic become very clear, but it also shows itself to be very familiar in the present day impeachment display.  The reason it will be difficult to pull together a fit body for impeachment, Hamilton explains, is because impeachment is a process that involves people who are solely contained in the realm of politics and politics are ruled by emotions and not reason.

“The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

These tricksters claim that because Hamilton used the word “political” he must have meant that political reasoning was sufficient for impeachment; i.e. if the majority in the House doesn’t like a president’s policies, mannerisms, or politics then impeachment is the solution.  However, Hamilton’s use of the term “political” is descriptive of the universe in which impeachment exists, not of the terms upon which impeachment may take place.  Because impeachment is applied to elected people who are tried for crimes that violate a position given by the entire society as opposed to a single person and the accused is tried by politicians it is properly classified as political.  It seems that politicians, pundits, and professors may be better at cherry picking than George Washington.

If that was all Hamilton said on the topic, a matter of interpretation could be claimed.  However, what Hamilton says after this statement makes all the difference in the world.

“The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”

Because politicians are the accused in impeachment and because they are tried by politicians, it will be difficult to put together an unbiased body to impeach, and because politics are products of division people and politicians will naturally take sides. 

Watch out, listen up, Hamilton is going to give us a bold warning of what will go wrong when impeachment is used for political punishments instead of strictly holding to the terms of impeachment outlined in Article 2 section 4.

“In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Because politicians are always the products of elections where one person wins and one person loses, there will always be one group of people unhappy with the other.  Hamilton considered it to be dangerous for impeachment to become a tool used to punish people for political reasons.  So when members of Congress, political pundits, or partisan professors claim that the Constitution supports using the institution for impeachment as a political punishment, they are not only wrong but aiding and abetting the “greatest danger” to the political system; they create impeachments not concerned with due process, not concerned with crimes, their elements, reliable evidence, or truth and qualified witnesses.  Under the propagandists presumed terms, guilt or innocence is not the standard as established by the founders, but the standard becomes whether you like an elected official or not.

It is here that I am reminded of a story in history where a man named Haman built gallows to hang his political enemy Mordechai.  To eliminate Mordechai as his competitor for the King’s affections, Haman attempted to sow a series of lies against Mordechai.  The King, upon discovering the truth, ordered Haman to be hung on his own gallows.  Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution is not written solely for the impeachment of presidents.  The text reads, “president, vice president, and all civil officers.”  That term “civil officers” includes every single person employed in federal government whether elected or hired by an elected person.  These political fornicators ought to be careful the standards they create, for what is good for the goose is good for the Haman.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

art heritage thanks

A Heritage Worthy of Thanksgiving

 

by KrisAnne Hall

 

As we reflect on the past year in America, let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice.  John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

We must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts.  Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our nation.  We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters.  We must teach the truth.  We owe it to them.  We owe it to our children.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our nation was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring nation must be liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. When we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

As an exceptional nation built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that our nation was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. This is the nation that opens its arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other nation can claim this legacy, no other people has this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us this nation, but on the exceptional nation that they gave us. We have an exceptional nation where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A nation birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A nation that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.” A nation that has prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A nation that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

So in this time of Thanksgiving, let us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other nation on the globe? America is an exceptional nation because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.  And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

Happy Thanksgiving America! May God continue to bless this exceptional nation.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Art Tgiving Procl

George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 as published on the Mount Vernon Website:

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 – President George Washington:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Are we tired of electing unqualified people to office?  Are we tired of electing people to office and having them forget WHO they work for?  Are we tired of the government not only ignoring the Constitution but destroying it with their ignorance, apathy, and malice?  Perhaps its time we start treating these people like EMPLOYEES so they will stop acting like royalty!

With this frustration and the need for solutions in mind, I have developed the following job application that must be completed BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT; federal, State, County, City, School Board, and Sheriff.  If they refuse to complete the application we must withhold monetary support, endorsements, and refuse to elect them to office, no matter which party they claim loyalty.

~We have no right to complain if we refuse to take back control.~

A .pdf version of this application is available HERE     

Art Employment App         

We the People Elected Personnel Job Applicaton

THIS APPLICATION IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, but merely is intended to evaluate suitability for employment. It is the policy of We The People to provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified persons without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, age, marital status, national origin, citizenship, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, or any other status protected under state and federal law. It is also the policy of We The People to have the option of conducting pre-employment screening before a job offer is made. If a job offer is made, continued employment may be contingent upon proper defense of the Constitution, Rights, and Liberties of the People.  Knowledge and understanding of the US Constitution is essential for all positions at all levels.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: Last: ___________________ First: _____________________ Middle: __________________________

Social Security #: _________________ Home Phone: ______________

Work Phone: ____________________

Please list below your current address and your two other most recent addresses:

Current/Street: ________________________City: __________State: ____ZIP: _______

Since (Mo/Yr): _____

Street: ________________________City: __________State: ____ZIP: ______From _____To ______

Street: ________________________City: __________State: ____ZIP: ______From _____To ______

EDUCATION

High School Attended: ________________________City/State: ________________Graduated? Yes No

_____________________________________________________________________________________Undergraduate College, Graduate School, Certification Class)

JOB QUALIFICATION:

Please answer all of the following questions. When necessary, note question number and use an extra sheet of paper to provide explanations.

  1. Yes ____No ____ Are you a natural born citizen of the United States? If the answer is “Yes,” proceed to Question #3. Answering “NO” will preclude you from certain representative offices by law.
  2. Yes ____No ____ Are you a legally naturalized citizen of the United States? Answering “NO” will preclude you from certain representative offices by law.
  3. Yes ____No ____ Do you understand who your boss is? Who?­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­__________________
  4. Yes ____No ____ Do you hold any loyalty, bond, or affection toward any foreign country or territory?
  5. Yes ____No ____ Have you ever been discharged or asked to resign from a job?  If yes, please explain:
  1. Yes ____No ____ Have you ever been convicted of or pled guilty to a felony or other crime?  If yes, please explain, (feel free to use additional sheets of paper as necessary):

Answering the following questions is required to complete this job application.  Failure to answer these questions will result in an incomplete application and will disqualify you as a candidate for the applied position.  YOU MUST answer all of the following questions. When necessary, note question number and use an extra sheets of paper to provide explanations.

  1.  Yes ____No ____ Does the Federal government have the “right” or the “authority” to take away your individual rights? Explain your answer:
  1.  Where do our individual rights come from?
  1.  What is the role of government in the lives of “free citizens?”
  1.  What will be your primary duty and obligation to the Constitutional and the people who hire you?
  1.  What was the legal compact (contract) between the 13 Independent States that created the Federal Government?
  1.  Yes ____No ____ Does the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the US Constitution give the Federal Government and the Supreme Court the ultimate power to determine the Constitutionality of any law passed by Congress? Explain your answer:
  1.  Yes ____No ____ Do the States have the authority to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries? Explain your answer:
  1.  Yes ____No ____ Would you support a federal law that defines the General Welfare Clause based on the “Original Intent of our Founders?” Explain your answer:
  1.  Why does the Bill of Rights include the 9th and 10th Amendments? Explain each and why they are both part of the US Constitution.
  1.  What does the “well-regulated militia” phrase mean in the Second Amendment?
  1.  What does “shall not be infringed” mean?
  1.  In your opinion, what are 2 current examples of the most egregious Federal overreach to Constitutional powers and what is your proposed remedy to each?
  1.  What training have you had to properly understand the US Constitution? (Law School doesn’t qualify as training for employment purposes)
  1.  Many believe the US Constitution is a living, breathing document. What is your view and why?
  1.  Describe what guides your moral compass.
  1.  Name three primary principles from the US Constitution that will guide you as our representative? Explain.
  1.  What is your understanding of “State Sovereignty?”
  1.  In your opinion what is the most important clause in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights?
  1.  Yes ____No ____ Would you support the repeal of the 17th Amendment? Explain your answer:
  1.  Have you read these primary source documents from our nation’s founding?

1100 Charter of Liberties____          Magna Carta ____              The Petition of Right of 1628____

The Grand Remonstrance____        Bill of Rights of 1689____   US Declaration of Independence _____

The US Constitution____         The Original Federalists Papers______   The Original Anti-Federalist Papers ______

  1.  Yes ____No ____ Do you agree to have your answers published for public review?

APPLICANT’S CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT

  1. I understand that I may submit a copy of my resume’ and that by submitting a resume’ I understand that it will be used only as supporting and additional background information. A resume is not an authorized substitute for a completed employment application.
  2. I understand that if I should choose to complete only a portion of the required employment application that the information submitted may not be enough information from which to base any determination on, and, as a result, my application may not receive full consideration for employment.
  3. I authorize the investigation of all statements contained in this application and release from all liability any persons or employers supplying such information, and I also release We The People from all liability that may result from making background investigations.
  4. I certify that the facts and information set forth in this application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any falsification, misrepresentation, or omission of facts on this application (or on any required documents) will be cause for denial of employment or immediate termination of employment, regardless of when or how discovered.
  5. I agree, if I am offered and accept a position, to conform to all existing and future workplace rules, regulations, policies and procedures of We The People and the Constitution of the United States.
  6. I understand and agree that We the People reserves the right to change any wage, hours of work and working conditions, in its sole discretion, at any time, as deemed necessary.
  7. I understand the employment relationship will be At Will, meaning that either party can end the employment relationship at any time, and for any reason, or no reason, through legal recall process, removal from office, or through proper elections.
  8. I understand that any employment offer is contingent upon my providing proof of identity and eligibility to work within the United States, prior to consideration of this application.
  9. I have read and reviewed the information contained in pages 1 through 3 of this employment application, and these 8 statements.

By signing this employment application I certify that I understand all of the information requested and that I have provided information that is truthful, complete and accurate.

__________________________________________ _____________________________

(Applicant Signature) (Today’s Date)

©2019 KrisAnneHall.com

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

victor

Note from KrisAnne:  This is an entry under out guest author series by Victor Sperondeo.  Mr. Sperandeo was a 2008 inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and has been included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters.  Mr. Sperandeo was featured in the best-selling, The New Market Wizards: Conversations with America’s Top Traders, by Jack D. Schwager and Super Traders: Secrets and Successes of Wall Street’s Best and Brightest, by Alan Rubenfeld, has been profiled twice in Barron’s, The Wall Street Journal and Stocks & Commodities, and has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox and other networks.  I hope you enjoy this thesis as much as I do! ~ KrisAnne

Art Victor

 

It’s Impossible to Outlaw “Crazy” — The Government has a Better Chance of Curbing Being Struck by Lightning

by Victor Sperandeo

The outcry that takes place whenever a “Mass Shooting” occurs, especially in a “school”, is certainly deserved. However, politicians thinking that “laws” will curb these events is mindless and statistically impossible. Certainly, lessening these occurrences in schools is possible, and should be done. Visit any government building for effective tactics to accomplish this, as they have virtually zero incidence of shootings.

Moreover, some historical facts should be considered. The largest number of deaths both at a school and away from a school, were from a bomb, not a semi-automatic gun. Most of us remember Timothy McVeigh killing 168 (wounding 680) people in Oklahoma in 1995, but almost no one remembers the “Bath Michigan School” bombing of 1927. It killed 44 (38 elementary school children) and injured 58 other people. This was the largest mass murder of school children in US history! The bomber, Andrew Kehoe, did this because he was fired, lost an election, and had his taxes raised. He also killed himself, and his wife. Most (72%) of these mass killings end in suicides. Wouldn’t we all classify him as “crazy”?

The “free press” doesn’t use statistics to tell a historical story, but to promote an agenda such as gun confiscation. Using statistics in a misleading manner is pure propaganda. Manipulating statistics to seize free people's guns has NOTHING to do with stopping gun violence. See the article by the Daily Caller as an example “EXPOSED: Obama Advisors' Emails In Immediate Sandy Hook Aftermath Reveal Anti-Gun Agenda: 'Tap Peoples Emotions' - “Go for a vote this week asap before it fades. Tap peoples [sic] emotion. Make it simple - assault weapons.”

Furthermore, CNN published a story by Saeed Ahmed and Christina Walker on 5/18/18 called “There has been on average one school shooting every week this year.” To fabricate these “school SHOOTINGS” statistics, the writers counted a BB Gun shooting, and an accidental discharge of a gun during a safety class. These incidents and other far-reaching examples attempt to mislead the reader to think it’s a “mass shooting.”

Let’s review the real stats on “Mass Shootings” over a long period. Mother Jones has an excellent data base of mass shootings from 1982 to date: “US Mass Shootings, from 1982/August- 2019/August : Data from Mother Jones Investigation.” A “mass shooting” is an incident in which a random shooter targets people in general and where three or more people die by firearm related violence. According to this progressive left-wing organization, from August 1982 to, August 2019 (or 38 years), the total of such incidences is 114 . This comes to 3 mass shootings per year on average.

With this understanding, what are the odds of this event? Today’s population (according to the US Census Bureau) is reported to be 328,036,963 as of 1/17/19 .Let’s adjust this number for people between ages 15-64, who are most likely to be involved in a mass shooting, or 207 million people. The conservative “average population” that might commit a mass shooting from 1982-2019 an estimated (conservative)160 million per year in age group 15-64. The occurrences number a mass shooting at 0.00000002 or two one-millions of one-percent, (114 divided by 38 (years) or 3 incidences divided by 160 million). The only conclusion is that these 114 people can be deemed as having suffered from a psychosis manifested in a wild or aggressive way. Synonyms for psychosis are: mad, insane, out of one's mind, deranged, demented, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, non- compos mentis, unhinged, i.e. crazy. Indeed, it is reported 72% of them committed or wanted/tried to commit suicide. In a population of people this large, certainly some very small fraction of people, suffer from psychosis, or crazy, while some are altruistic geniuses.

This statistic shows that the number is so small, you can’t legislate against it to eliminate crazy people. When you have a large population, the very few who want to do harm, “gun control laws” are impossible, as these people will always find a way to accomplish what is driving them, whether it is with guns, knives, trucks, bombs, etc.

It would be more effective to create a law against lightning deaths, as the odds of getting struck by and dying from lightning are much higher! So, in this case (20 years) 1,020 deaths divided by an average of 250,000,000 people is only 0.0000002 or two one hundred thousands of one percent. In the last 20 years, the average deaths annually from lightning numbers 51 average per year according to * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). More people of all ages (thereby the 250,000,000 )can go outside,and can be stuck by lightning, than are likely to be a mass shooter.

Therefore, if those in government made a law that no one can be outside while it was raining, punishable by a fine or jail, far more people would be happy to comply, and the number of lightning deaths would decline. But not for mass shootings. Fines or jail don’t bother people who generally intend to commit murder, and who then are highly likely to kill themselves or die in jail.

With a population of 328+million people, no law can stop 3-11 crazy people from doing evil each year. Also note, as the population grows, mass shootings will slightly increase. This point is known by the Statists, who desire to rule over other people. Historically, as one can see, this is the true point of gun control; to rule by force without the people’s ability to fight back, and ultimately not preventing what is impossible to prevent.

If one wishes to see the proof, read Mao’s, and other dictators’ views on gun confiscation: “Every Communist must grasp the truth - Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao). This is a slogan popular among Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.”

Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

Benito Mussolini: “First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.”

Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Fidel Castro: moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists - compiled by the preceding Batista regime - to confiscate the people's firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don't give the all-wise leader any lip.

Hugo Chavez' government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians. Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. 6/1/12

But Karl Marx, who actually wanted a revolution, said, “the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition... Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

However, in contrast, George Washington believed: “A free people ought to be armed.” Indeed, the words in the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated “militia”, (which means ALL THE PEOPLE, as permanent standing armies were not allowed See Article1, Section 8, Subclause 12 - 16: To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the RIGHT (NOT PRIVILEGE) of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Emphasis added).

With the fact that 3 people (or perhaps as a high 11) in a year, who would be certainly deemed crazy, out of 250,000 million adults today, does it seem reasonable to effectively attempt to overturn the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, or a Natural, (most would say God-given) Right? These are events that are unpredictable, but statistically inevitable. As for laws against “crazy” i.e. a psychopath - see the quote of Adolf Eichmann and see if a law would have changed his mind: “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.” This is the mindset the Government is using to take a Free People’s guns to stop a mass murderer!

*According to the NOAA, over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities, placing it in the second position, just behind floods for deadly weather.[13][14] In the US, between 9% and 10% of those struck die,[15] for an average of 40 to 50 deaths per year (28 in 2008).[16]

 

Contact:  Victor Sperandeo (214) 969-0559

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter