Gulf1 - C - From the Gunny's Desk

Returning to Principle in Law

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

As I was listening to the radio today, discussion was on several bills in the house and senate, and the host and guest Senator were discussing the bills, and the likely future of them.  What struck me the most in this was not the bills, but the fact the issue of discussion was the insertion in a bill of a totally extraneous amendment.

The insertion of amendments and other small changes into bills which are important such as funding bills for specifics, has become common practice, as it allows something which can’t stand on its own merits and pass, be passed against the judgment of the majority because of procedural rules, and no other reason..

When the first congress sat in session, they had far more work to do than any other congress in history.  They had to take the plan for government, The Constitution, and they had to consider the actual needs of an operating government in an established nation, and determine what they believed was truly necessary, and what was exactly what the war of independence was trying get us away from – a government which operated without response to public oversight.

Every congress which has come together in the last century, every administration which has been assembled, has had well established law, well established planning and principles, and in truth, if we wished to continue to be the established republic, only those congress’ and administrations confronting war have ever had real issues of great importance which had to be dealt with, absent lengthy consideration.  Every other congress has had the opportunity to make a few changes, as might be beneficial, but in truth, none needed to do any major changes except because of foolish moves previously made.

When congress was establishing the form of our nation, every bill brought up in either house was expected to be defended by the proponent, stating the article and paragraph the bill naturally would fit under and the source of authority for that bill.  All which did not withstand full scrutiny were discarded out of hand.  The very idea of attaching something extraneous to a bill was considered obvious disingenuous design, and punished if ever repeated.

The outbreak of the War Between the States brought on numerous suspensions of some of the most important aspects of our Constitution, including the suspension of Habeas Corpus, whole sale detentions, among others.  The prosecution of the war kept such things occuring throughout, and at its end, much of what was done had become accepted by The People, and in this vein, many of the protections we had from government stayed away.  This was the point at which most of our reflecting to the Constitution for law was lost, and our government began to choose to rule its self.

As a boy, I often heard the statement “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and was taught up to my majority, this was under the rule of law and valid.  It is a logical stand, or could be, were our laws rationally debated, and logically passed, or thrown out, however with the means of law-making as it currently stands, that statement is utterly ridiculous, and completely contrary to what the Speakers of Congress have told us.

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she stated specifically:  “we have to pass this health care act in order to find out what is in it”.  In so stating, she told the whole of the Nation, Congress did not know what it was proposing to pass, and she stated it as the head of the House of Representatives, as a matter of plain fact.

While I have no love lost for that woman, I have to absolutely believe her in this statement she made, because it is so damning for the actual practice for making law which our Congress has reduced its self to.  Her statement completely comports with what we see of congress in every way, and at the same time, it is a true statement which says:  “we don’t know what we are arguing for or against, and you people really don’t having any idea what we do, or how we do it”.

If  our elected Senators and Representatives can’t make laws one at a time,  if they can’t cleanly pass a law with all its necessities in order, it is long overdue for us to confront Congress and the central government, and tell them:  “We don’t accept the old premise, ignorance of the law is no excuse”, “we can’t know the law when you don’t even know it, and you are lying, cheating, stealing when you resort to tricks to pass bills.

We currently have no control over our own laws, and those who do have control, have neither the knowledge of what is in them, nor the honesty to exclude extraneous issues, and force such to be considered in their own right.

We are electing a president this year, but we should also focus on the fact we have far more control over freshmen Senators and Representatives than we do over the executive.  If we wish our laws to be rational, applicable to common purpose we can support, we must choose to control Congress, by ensuring it is citizens being elected, and not politicians being re-elected.  The current president has shown the whole world just how much control The People have over the executive administration, if we are to control our government, it must be through Congress.

 

Copyright April 26, 2012 by Gulf1

Standing Together

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

If your inbox looks anything like mine, we have a great problem keeping us from being fully effective.  Each day, I receive dozens of emergency requests for donations, for dozens of worthy causes, from protecting life, the first amendment, and our rights under it, a never ending attack on our right to keep and bear arms superior to the government, the never ending work of forcing back tax increases, and others so many, it would take a whole column to list them.

For many years, I donated to as many as possible, and worked on the issues I felt most important, and fumed over the fact it appeared as if the never ending attacks were from a coordinated, central plan, undivided, and fully in control of its self.  While noting this, I saw that each attack, each bill was written with the exact intent of being the focus of a limited audience, and after long consideration, have concluded this is no accident, but the deliberate means of incremental changing.

I concluded long ago, as a mere child, communism is no political ideal, socialism has no political ambition, but each is a tool to be used to destroy standing societies and Nations, and open them up ripe for invasion and conquering.  I concluded this because once communism was established, every single time, it was established with totalitarian government as the end result.

Every bit of socialism, in every form, socialism, per se, social democracy, democratic socialism, has shown its self to be the exact same ideology of communism, but softened, so it could feel acceptable to a people who are not sound in their own principles.  Every single example of socialism brought to fruition has ended with the same results as communism:  totalitarian dictatorship.

If we take a good look at our own foundation, why we believe as we do, and what we stand for, each and every aspect we are confronted with ultimately reverts to the fact we believe the Constitution is the best form for constituting a limited government, with an exact and precisely limited authority and purpose.  We believe the Government must be under the rule of law or there is no law in truth.

We are deliberately divided precisely because we are indeed in charge of our Nation if we stand together on the same principles.  We are feared for our willingness to choose to be true neighbors, follow the word of God, and treat our neighbor as we would ourselves, because if we do this, we can’t be divided, and we are unstoppable.

When candidate obama avidly spoke of “change we can believe in”, his supporters did not want that change defined and candidate obama couldn’t have cared less that his opponents wanted him to define his idea of change, we were the enemy, and he would have been crazy to allow us to force his hand.

If we are going to restore our Nation, we have to look at what we face, and acknowledge the size of the challenge, the time it took to become what it is, and reasonably assess our course of action accordingly.  If we continue to confront each issue separately, we will be always active, always moving, and always losing ground.  This is the nature of conservation, and of deliberate destruction.

While it is good to be a member of many associations we find support our principles and our foundation, and it can be effective in controlling those who would rule us, however when we have reached a point where every association must call for donations to fight that particular attack, we’ve been effectively divided, and cannot compete with those bent on our destruction, because simple chaos can bring down the best built edifice, if we allow it to.

To win, we have to choose to all stand on the principle of re-establishing our republic, and accepting as truth, we don’t have one anymore.  We must choose to pursue the change of our government, without regard to the issues, but wholesale, with complete turnover, so we are not confronting a well established wall of politicians, but are confronting individuals, each new to their seat.  We must consider what the founders considered, and recognize we are each Sovereign Citizens, individuals, each capable of making life work, and able to meet our own challenges, and we must confront the central government, charging it with its crimes of assumption of power not consented to.

Each and every movement I’m connected with continues to ask for money.  Continuing to act on individual issues, is continued division.  If we would restore our Nation, return to our founding, and restore ourselves as Sovereign Citizens, all, we must choose to call out this criminal and illegal central government, demand it cease and desist, and we must take action to dis-establish it, and re-establish our Republic by re-constituting a lawful federal government, with its exactly eighteen duties and purposes, with the full weight of the Constitution binding it to the exacting limits we decided upon.  Nothing less can ever bring us back, and we will never have as easy a task as it is today, even as difficult as it appears, it can only get worse.

 

Copyright April 2012 by Gulf1

Feelings in Politics?

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

Recently, another columnist wrote regarding the fact the party leadership seems bent on concluding the nomination process last week or month, while there is substantial time and events left before the actual nomination process is completed.  His column reverberated with the charge of divisive and dismissive invective, as he stated his perspective of why this is, and why the party leadership pick is not, in his opinion, the right one. 

The attack was over his description of the Mormon issue, and the fact he was assumed as attacking on that, and not on substance when his statements were clearly regarding the issue of whether the “presumptive nominee” is conservative in fact, or not.  My take is lots of people don't want to hear the truth, it requires one to look more closely at one's self if unaccustomed, and this is one of a long set of generations taught not to look inside.

My own generation is as bad as any and I am thankful I got a face full of reality very young.  Knowing life is a deadly experience no matter what is important to keep other things in perspective, and few even consider such things.  As example, how many people actually consider we have consigned a dozen generations to debt, because we and so many other generations have refused to confront those we elect with the fact they simply aren't doing anything like what their job is, and I won't even venture into the realm of honor, because with a few select exceptions, there is no simple honor code in politics anymore.

We all know honor among politicians has always been a hit or miss proposition anyway but I think some people really want to make an issue out of something, and do so specifically because they don’t want to deal with the issue at hand, the issue of what this man believes, politically.  I don't disrespect any man for his beliefs if they are real, heart felt, and not lethal, but I don't believe Mormonism is or should be an issue for debate, it is open for anyone to research, and the only cogent issue is whether this man can represent the conservatives of our Nation, or if his ideology is not conservative, as some of us believe.

I think we must shake off the foolish perspectives and keep on topic with the issue of importance, who we want to serve us as president.  We must pass judgment constantly, or we are fools and stating a perspective is not calling anyone to account, and it is that judgment we are constrained from, morally.  I am sure there are some who would question my own faith, because I have a long and deep grounding in science, and believe it a good tool to learn how God made things work.  I find the intricacies and constantly repeated patterns through life to show me the hand of God, and by no means to suggest His absence, yet so many believe those solidly founded in science simply can’t be true believers.

I get amused by this in part because I was raised atheist and remained one till I was confronted with facts I had to deal with, and it has been in large part because of what I've learned through science I am so utterly convicted in my faith.  We have the mere remnants of the Republic which was truly established, we have a government that simply refuses to be answerable to The People, to “The Rule of Law”, and completely at odds with every aspect of our principled form.  We have the most aggressively communist president since FDR, and the greatest loss of personal income deliberately caused, in my lifetime, and we can pin all of it on the failure to maintain our founding principles.

We either work together as The People who are The Nation, and agree we must restore our once firm foundation.  We must return to the moral standards which provided the means of our enormous success and longevity.  But most of all, we must accept the reality, central planning no more works today than it did for Rome, or Our Nation is gone.  Can it really be that hard to see and understand it is this or nothing?

Copyright April 2012 by Gulf1

The Conservative Challenge

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

I’ve received much response to my charge, we have to be bold and courageous, and we must do something that to us today, seems just short of revolutionary, and the fact Ron Paul stands out, has been a sore spot for so many.  I’d like to substantiate my claim, and define why we must change our ways dramatically.

To start with, the issue in politics is always the “boiling a frog” theory.  Inexperience throws a frog in hot water and the frog jumps out, and since he isn’t armed, he doesn’t kill the person.  Those who have chosen to alter our Nation without using the law of the Constitution, not doing it with the approval of a super majority, as amendments demand, use their frog experience, and turn the heat up slowly and incrementally.

We all know vast change had to be made from the beginning, because compromise on a number of issues, directly connected with our principles and rights, had to be made for the Constitution to be ratified.  It took a hundred years to iron out the worst of the errors, and it has taken another fifty, to “mostly” iron out the feelings, on both sides of many issues, none more potent than race, and equality of Blacks.

For those on the “progressive side of things, politics is simply a matter of figuring out a way to infiltrate some idea they have into an already corrupt and bastardized system and a complete set of institutions, already far away from the restraints being demanded by the “the Neanderthals”, and therefore needing little special argument to support their demand.

Conservatives tend to think of themselves as a whole, and seldom define what they stand for.  The original reason for this is everyone knew what was “good” about our form, and that it all needed to remain unchanged.  Conserving our original form was the whole of it.

For the true Conservative today, we have an enormous task, and the very first, is to define ourselves, because the progressives have defined us in ways both to remove any dignity from our stance, and to control the debate by defining our reasons, while holding the notion we have no right to define their reasons and purposes.

In the face of this, the majority, who are “middle of America”, must try to choose from among the ideas presented, who has principle, and who is pursuing power, as people on both sides have done both.

We can dream of electing staunch Conservative people for president, Senators, Representatives, and gradually restore our Constitution as “the rule of law over government”, we can plan to use the Tea Party Movement to alter our congress election by election, but for conservative ideals, this is working under the rules of our enemies.  History shows this is not worthy of our efforts.

I have been active as a conservative for forty years.  I have not changed my stance on much of anything except the issue of “choice versus life”, and have had to conclude life is absolute.  In my first years of conservative advocacy, I was remonstrated constantly by the suggestion “those ideas are outdated, and won’t work in a modern world”.  I wasn’t trying to return to 1793 or something, I just thought “A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of The Free State, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall not be Infringed” was a rather clear and cogent statement and clearly commits our individual right as “un-alienable”.

I thought the rights which had been specifically enumerated should be treated like they were exactly as written, in clear common speech, with no need for parsing or explicating.  The progressive perspective on this is that as our society has changed with the progress of modern technology, we have to modify and adapt those ideas to meet with the principles and purposes of people today.

I was okay with that, as long as ALL The People, chose to get together and consider the Constitution, and do it “by law”, by amending such as we agree is needed.  Using the fixed standard for amending, with the Truth, spelled out as “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, with anything less being a lie by omission.

Those who challenged my view stood firm on the idea the rules were stacked against them, and rather than follow “archaic rules” meant for “antique people” it was more right to just toss the issues out, let everyone speak, and then hold a voice vote, and change things on majority rule.

My friends and co-Conservatives, that is the precise reason our founders wrote out the rule of law for the government, demanding we bind it down with the chains of the Constitution, because man is fallible, and destined to follow his heart when it leads away from truth and towards power.  We are people just like every other.

My premise we must act precipitously, because incremental change favors the ways of the enemy, which is the lie, and the only way the Truth is established as a firm foundation is by throwing off all the evil, discarding the mess lies inserted into justice makes, and starting on a clean slate.  All of man’s history shows this is true.

In the real World, when the actual nature of People is factored in to the political equation, “Right” has always been established by the literal throwing down of the wrong that is the standard.  It is the Principled purposed People rising up against our oppression and throwing it down, and in this, we must throw down wrong, formed into government and authority, and we can allow no vestige of it to remain, just as the surgeon can leave no cancerous cells, or he has wasted the entire operation.

I don’t wish to be among those who must do something, or be responsible for accepting the assured enslavement of future generations, however it is seldom ours to choose what we shall face in our own lifetimes, and the abject failure of incremental return to principle, pushed down, stomped on, denigrated, laughed at, and derided for a century, has led us to this critical juncture.

If not now, then when?  If not us then who?  Will there be a “later”?

 

Copyright April 2012 by Gulf1

Coming Down the Rail

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

As we approach summer, so many considering vacation and schools let out, it is quite likely a good many Sovereign Citizens will be far more focused on issues of personal interest and impact, than on the coming election.

This is an election as no other, and in truth, it should be foremost on all Citizens minds, and the facts surrounding it should consume most of discussion, most of popular opinion, and should supercede any and all plans any of us have for this summer, but from the few odd letters I get, I know that it is the few who have been deeply and gravely concerned over our Nation’s future for years, who will be the only ones focusing on what will be done behind closed doors, politically, preparing the “Manchurian Candidate” to accomplish the needed changes to prepare for his next term.

The idea our Nation has been the focus of a constant, never ending work to infiltrate and substantially alter our Nation and our government sounds like the thoughts of “conspiracy nuts”, but how many have considered the real impact of our statement of founding principles, which run contrary to all that has been used before, as principle to establish a Nation?

Our Declaration established the morality of our breaking long held bonds, on the principle of broken trust, and broken natural laws.  Americans naturally think we confronted England, the Empire in this, but few have noted our “establishing a beacon of freedom and of hope on a hill”, is only such to people who have been held down, abused on what we have told them are their Natural Rights, and it is equally a direct indictment of the Rulers of Nations.

To all those in power by force, we stated every other government in the world was illegitimate, and criminal in its makeup, and no other people were justly defended in their full rights, as natural born citizens, and their current status as “subjects of the State” was a specific crime committed against each and every person in the world not living in freedom, in wealth and power.

If I say we have long been infiltrated by communists, ongoing for over a hundred years, I become a “conspiracy theorist” or “nut” as some prefer, however, consider this:  having told the whole world it is wrong, can there be any doubt that from the moment our National Creed, The Declaration, was published, it would be in direct conflict with all such governments which relied on an aristocratic class, and classified most of its population as belonging to the land, that we had established rights for common man against world standards?

With our Declaration so adamant in the natural equality of personhood, and in writing our Constitution establishing government on the basis of natural law to fulfill our Declaration, and in claiming the Natural Rights of All Sovereign Citizens, with this New Nation created on principle long established, and long ignored, do we not challenge and offend every other form of Nation?

If we were allowed to stand and go forward, can there be any doubt every effort would be made by then current Kings and other dictators, their authority and status at risk, to insert themselves into this new Nation, and do everything in their power to assure its ultimate failure?  Was it not a dire necessity to ensure we did not endure, because the success of this Nation, as it was established, would be proof of the validity of those newly established principles?

Sheer logic should take us to the certainty our Nation has been under attack from its inception, to this very day, because just as “that beacon on the hill” provides comfort and hope for the down trodden class, for all those who labor for the benefit of others, is it not equally obvious, our continued existence was and remains a threat to every dictatorial form of rule?

With this idea being fruitful and beneficent to the vast multitudes who have always worked hard, and never before taken home a proper value, has proven out, from the very outset, we allowed each and every other Nation to watch the former colonies grow to become more powerful than the Empire we broke from in three decades.  We ending up assuming the role that empire once occupied, but assuming it with a benevolent hand, making free market principles the new paradigm.

Today, we confront a government which calls its self our own, but which denies any of our Law over it.  Half of America questions, rightfully, the provenance of an apparent illegal alien, elected without papers, and this government not only chooses not to inspect, but adamantly stands in the way of all who attempt to do so.

We confront a man who started his establishing the week he was announced as winning the election, not even waiting until he was sworn in, before beginning to install ministers and establish his way.

This man was a member of the American Communist Party from his first day in politics, being elected to state office as a member.  His support as a candidate to that office, to the National Senate, has been substantially from the most radical of ideological enemies.  As such, is he not proof positive of the extent and depth of our infiltration by communist activists?

We are given a choice, an opponent we are told, but he is one who has already done in the State he governed, much of what we so ardently oppose.  We are soon to be told, “He is your candidate”, and at that point, we will be expected to choose between the incumbent, and the man who is presented as an opposite.

In the mean time, there is an actual opposite, yet he is unelectable because he is “a nut”.  He has a foreign policy contrary to sixty years of foreign policy, but isn’t that how long ours has been owned and operated by the U.N.?

He stands on the premise, the Constitution is the law of the land, the government has no “rights”, but only such authority as we allow it to exercise, and he states his intent of putting government “under the law”, as our principles demand.

He states the government spending more than revenue coming in is morally wrong, and in full violation of the law, and has stated an intent to end the deficit spending, pay off the debt, and close down the vast expanses of government which have no authority to be, with no place within the Constitution, yet controlling vast aspects of our Nation.

We know he is true, because he has stood on these exact principles and intents for forty years.  We don’t know if he can accomplish what he claims, not because of him, but because we don’t know if “We, The People”, are moral enough to support and back the restoration of our Republic, as our whole dogma of Americana says is our way and heritage.

We can elect him, and we can test and try his words.  We can see if our Nation can be restored without resorting to a new Declaration, or if “The People who are The Nation”, must take our own back with arms, by not only forcibly keeping him in the race, by failing to stand on the founding principles of our Nation, and not being the force he must have, to overcome our domestic enemies, in control of the central government, and determined to prevent our return to lawful government.

We could also elect the candidate of choice, chosen by those in this criminal government, those who have controlled the process of candidacy, and denied Ron Paul his place for years, when it was important, but not a precipice we looked over, or we can re-elect the man who has been part and parcel to the dozens of criminal conspiracies which currently run, including the full blown invasion of Mexico, which by international law, was an act of war.

Our future nation will look exactly like what our decision now, before the summer begins, establishes as our intent for our future.  Is it rational to hope for incremental restoration of sound government from the central foreign controlled government?  Not ever.  Is it possible for our Nation to survive as a Republic, electing a “party candidate”?  Not unless “the party” suddenly decides restoring the republic is better than continuing to destroy it.

Can The People who are this Nation, accept our role in the world as a subject nation, with world government under the U.N., and with Islam waiting in the wings to assume control over the U.N. and world government?

We have a hard choice at the moment, because to accomplish change, we have to do something radical, something we haven’t seriously considered except in our history reading, as “fait accompli”, and long behind us.  Almost everyone in the world has chosen to try to continue on the current path, and hope there is a turn further up, where it can turn for the better.  They have never reached it.  Dare we follow that example?

 

Copyright April 2012 by Gulf1