Barbeau - a Voice from Prison #3
I Will See Your Tyranic Oppression and Raise You a Virus~
10/16/2016 – FDC
I was recently reading the "TRAIL MEMORANDUM AND OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION," Document #1052, that Ammon Bundy filed in the Federal District Court in Oregon for his Refuge Occupation case. In this Memorandum of Opposition explaining Ammon's purpose for the "occupation" and intent of adverse possession of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, which is a very interesting legal doctrine, it was said that "In fact, the government's arrest of Mr. Bundy came as a direct consequence" of how effective his ideas (doctrine of adverse possession) were proving to be – on January 25, authorities demanded Mr. Bundy's arrest in order to stop the "virus [that he] was spreading" – those demands leading tragically to the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum." There was reference to a website news article and link: KOIN 6 News Staff, "Militia at Malheur: 'Virus was spreading,'" January 24, 2016; http://koin.com/2016/01/29/militia-at-malheur-virus-was-spreading. After reading that, I became inspired to spread my own virus.
Things in America are out of control. I think everyone has seen that. There are tyrants (FBI, IRS, EPA, DEA, ATF, FLM, Forrest Service, etc.) running rampant, terrorizing and destroying citizens everywhere, though mainstream media does not report it and mainstream America is largely oblivious and/or ignoring it. I will not expound here on what goes on so as not to divert short attention spans with a lengthy article. Those that care already know the issues. My situation is this: I'm still in prison, being persecuted for making my own gun (I thought I had the right to keep and bear arms, guess I'll find out when I ask the Judge), there's all my friends being persecuted in Oregon and Nevada for trying to "restore the Constitution" and defending their ways of life, other friends are persecuted and being deprived of their rights, and there's so many other citizens out there all across the Union being oppressed in various ways. So what do we do about it? I ask this question everywhere I go and I always get the same typical answers: "I don't know", or something involving waking people up with education, petitions, advocating to representatives, protests, marches, and such. While these things are important and have their place, they are methods that mostly have no real widespread effect. The tyrants continue on. I believe some of the revolutionary generation in the 1770's had my same question in their minds when they were dealing with the British tyranny. The probably went around to their friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and passers-by, asking "what do we do? What do we do?" They answered back with the same answers then as today – "let's send a petition to Parliament, Let's protest in front of the Governor's house, let's march in downtown Boston, let's write articles in the newspapers, and spread pamphlets". That stuff didn't work back then either. In fact, by the end of the War for Independence, more colonists were loyalists to the Crown and supported the British occupation, and more people were signing up to join the British Army than there were fighting against the British and joining the militia or Continental Army. None of the peaceful solutions accomplished anything. Thomas Jefferson mentioned that in the Declaration of Independence: "were answered only with repeated injury>" Patrick Henry mentioned it in his famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech, and Samuel and John Adams said it during the conventions right before they declared independence. In those days, people saw tyranny as it was, understood how it really worked, and were not fooled as to its existence. I identify with those people. I know the answer to my question. I learned it from studying history. After the Boston Massacre and after realizing that petitioning Parliament was useless, Sam and John Adams fled Boston to raise a militia and smuggle illegal arms with John Hancock funding it. I guess nobody considers that though, huh? Those brave patriots broke all kinds of laws and committed treason against the government, and America celebrates it every 4th of July. Instead of calling it "Independence Day", we should call it "Mass Acts of Treason Day", because that is what they did. Oh, but you might say "but we're a civilized society nowadays," or "this is a democracy, we do things differently today." Well, the colonists said the same things in their day. If we want to fix the system, remove the corruption, if we want to end the tyranny, if we want to restore individual freedom and liberty, if we want to restore the Republic, we must look to our history for the answer and o what our forefathers did. And what did they do? They raised militias, acquired arms, and defended themselves, their loved ones, and their communities. Remember the story of Lexington Green. You might say "oh, but we must be on the moral high ground." The tyrants already started oppressing us long ago. They started murdering us citizens long ago. Everyone has heard of the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres. How many blacks, how many aboriginals, how many others have been slain on the government's behalf? Hey, let's go ask LaVoy Finicum about the "moral high ground." Oh, wait, the government silenced his voice. We The People will always be on the moral high ground as long as our action are for a just and righteous cause, like removing tyranny and restoring freedom and liberty. Remember the anti-federalists' fear of the new Federal Government replacing the British tyranny? They will always be on the low ground. Any time you have a people wanting to be governed and people who want to govern, like two magnets attracting each other, you are guaranteed an eventual tyranny. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "not more than twenty years should pass without a revolution, because the Government can do a lot of damage to liberty in twenty years' time." Our state and federal legislators are never going to stop writing law. On average, every American commits three felonies a day. The more laws written, the more violators created, the more liberty that gets legislated away. What do we do when it's four, five or six felonies a day? Do we just keep building more prisons and fill 'em up? We already have the largest prison population in the world and the highest percentage of convicted felons. It has to stop. The oppressors are not going to give up their reign and everything they've accomplished "for democracy." You know what democracy is. It's a mix of socialist, fascist, Marxist, communist, monarchy and dictatorship type governments all mixed together with a little republicanism mixed in adding voting to give the "people's will" some representation. Don't be deceived any longer. Originally, to be republican was to be anti-federal government. After the Constitution was drafted and distributed around the colonies, people split into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists (republicans). Eventually Federalists became democrats and the Republic became a democracy, sadly. The Republic that once was and the democracy we have now are two different things and the distinction is realized by studying history and how patriots and statesmen of old talked about the Republic. It's these republican principals, those revolutionary principles, which have been abandoned over time due to the laziness and which have yielded to the democratic principles of taking from the minority for the majority's sake. Democracy might be all fine and dandy for you until freedoms and liberties you care most about are taken away for the greater good. In a Republic, it's freedom and liberty for ALL. Your individual freedoms and liberties are never up for a vote. Your personal rights can never be legislated away, or infringed upon. But in a democracy, anything can be reached. The greatest amount of infringement taking place, I believe concerns our Second Amendment. Congress found a way around the Second Amendment's prohibition of legislation by using their Article, 1 Section 9 power to tax and regulate interstate commerce. On top of that, the American people have become lazy to do anything about this and have been conditioned to rely on a standing military and law enforcement to defend against criminals and foreign enemies, so that the people would believe they don't need arms or that we need militia to defend against democracy, oh, I mean tyranny.
I have been reading about a truly fascinating gentleman named Tench Coxe. To tell about him and some of the things he said in his writings, I will do a bunch of quoting from an article found in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Volume 7, Issue 2, Article 3. The article is titled "Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823," and you can find it online at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol7/iss2/3. The authors are Stephen P. Halbrook and David B. Kopel. It is a long article but I only want to quote and talk about certain parts of it to make my point.
"Tench Coxe, a member of the second rank of this nation's founding members and a leading proponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote prolifically about the right to keep and bear arms. In this article, the authors trace Coxe's story, from his early writing in support of the Constitution, through his years of public service, to his political writings in opposition to the presidential campaigns of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. The author's note that Coxe described the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right, and believe that individual right to bear arms was necessary for self-defense and hunting, as well as for militia purposes and protection against oppression by large standing armies.
The view of this important Founding Era political commentator and public servant in form the ongoing Second Amendment debate. The authors argue that Coxe's depiction of an individual right to bear arms encompassing hunting, self-defense and the public militia power supports the "standard model" of the Second Amendment prevalent in legal literature.
One part of a point I've been trying to make is supported by a little piece written in a newspaper. Remember the occupation of British troops in Boston in 1775, when General Gage proclaimed all citizens turn in their arms, someone wrote:
"An editorial on Gage's proclamation stressed that an armed populace must keep government in check: The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to the king… They are rebels who arm against the Constitution, not they who defend it by arms." – "A Freeman," P.A. Evening Post, June 27, 1775.
Hmm, "morally lawful" to resist? The authors talk later on about some essays Tench wrote and had published in the Philadelphia Independent Gazatteer, Oct. 21, 1787. They said: In a fourth of a series of essays defending the Constitution, Coxe argued that, should tyranny threaten, the "friends to liberty…using these arms which Providence has put into their hands, will make a solemn appear to the power above." Hence, the new Constitution did not need a declaration of rights any more than the Articles of Confederation did" "neither of them have a bill of rights, nor does either notice the liberty of the press, because they are already provided for by the State Constitutions; and relating only to personal rights, they could not be mentioned in a contract among the sovereign states."
I'll pause there. It's very interesting that Tench Coxe said, "personal rights could not be mentioned in a contract among the sovereign states." Among the personal rights, in addition to the mentioned freedom of press, is the right to keep and bear arms. Eventually there was so much public demand for an absolute guarantee against government infringement that the Bill of Rights was drafted. Can you imagine if it never had been or if the Second Amendment hadn't been included? We would have no guns in America. People back in those days believed keeping and bearing arms was a personal right and nobody questioned that. People nowadays, especially the lawmakers and those working in the Judicial system, don't believe that and it wasn't until the HELLER decision in the Supreme Court that changed their view that the Second Amendment as a collective right of the people. People in our government have things so twisted. But, what Coxe said about the personal right to arms is exactly why I machined and built my own machinegun with a short barrel without registering it or paying taxes and ignoring prohibitions, because Congress cannot regulate a personal right.
What Congress and the rest of the Federal Government can do is regulate interstate commerce. As the Supreme Court ruled, persons or things in interstate commerce. So if you buy a gun made, imported, or dealt by a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer, it is, or can be, regulated by State and Federal Government and that's the nutshell of my defense against the Federal charges I'm facing in the 9th Circuit. In chose not to buy a regulated "firearm" in order to exercise my personal right to keep and bear my arms instead of the privilege of being permitted to possess a "firearm."
And to continue on – as for the alleged danger of a standing army: "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them…" – Coxe, "An American Citizen IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazatteer, Oct. 21, 1787.
I would add, in addition to what Coxe said about the militia being a powerful check on a standing military, that militia is the powerful check on the Executive Branch as a whole. Back then, everyone (republicans/antifederalists especially) was worried that the Executive could take over as a monarchy because whoever is president controls the military and all the executive agencies. Imagine if the people in the 1770's and 1780's saw what the Executive Branch has become today with as many law enforcement agencies exist today, what they are authorized to do, and how many are authorized to use deadly force. Maybe the Framers of the Constitution would have added limiting provisions. Tench Coxe wasn't the only one to make the argument that the militia would be sufficient to over-awe a standing army. Noah Webster, in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (Oct. 16, 1787) said:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops, that can be on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Noah also said in different essays:
"even the power of a veteran army could not subdue a patriotic militia ten times its number." and, "The whole personal influence of the Congress, and their parricide army could never prevail over a hundred thousand men armed and disciplined owners of the Country…"
I say the "supreme power" has been enforcing unjust laws by the sword for a long time now. There are plenty of unjust laws out there and if you disobey or try to challenge those unjust laws like I am doing, you get beaten, tazed, short, arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in jail or prison. You get destroyed. I have been destroyed. I have many friends who have been destroyed by the government. LaVoy Finicum was slain by the sword, and so have many others.
Many people believe the National Guard is our militia and that we don't++++ the "unorganized" militia "running around in the woods playing army." Well, let's see what was said about it back then. The argument that the militia would be sufficient to over-awe a standing army was persuasive in Pennsylvania, the first state to call a convention. But anti-federalist at the convention were unconvinced. As John Smilie warned: "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army – or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." James Wilson, who had urged Coxe to write "An American Citizen IV," contended that the Constitution already allowed for the ultimate force in the people: "In its principles, it is surely democratical, for, however wide and various the firearms power may appear, they may all be traced to one source, the people." These men said these things during the convention in 1787. Fast forward to 1902 when Congress passed the Dick Act. Congress did exactly what John Smilie warned of; they created a select militia, the National Guard, which is not owned by the State. Our uniforms say U.S. Army on them, our regulations are U.S. Army's, and our paychecks come from Department of Defense. The Army National is a reserve component of the regular Army and a part of the Federal Government. It is not militia. It is not made up of civilians, and they will not, in an official capacity, protect the people and their liberty from the government. Notice how the only time you see the National Guard activated is during natural disasters or against the people, like for example: The Bonus March, Kent State University, Waco, Ruby Ridge, during Hurricane Katrina when they went house to house taking citizen's guns, Boston Marathon Bombing when they quarantined the whole city, Dakota Access Pipeline where they have been activated to protect the people from the people (or whatever the governor's excuse is). See, the "select militia" has been used to disarm and control the people, just as we were warned. Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 310, is where you can find the statute for the Dick Act. The Federal Government doesn't like not being in control of the "firearms power." Remember that the militia and the Confederate Army almost defeated the Federal Union Army. The Federal Government learned a big lesson about allowing the people to retain the "firearms power." Nowadays, people have fears of our standing military taking control under martial law. We witnessed the potential for this after the Boston Marathon Bombing when the whole city was locked down and we see a melding of military equipment, training, tactics and technology with the Federal, State and municipal law enforcement. Ever heard of Department of Homeland Security's Fusion program? Everyone has seen police departments, sheriff departments and federal agencies rolling around in MRAP's and other military type equipment. We see the militarization. We see the heavy-handed tactics to quash resistance to arbitrary law, and the enforcement of it. We saw it at the Bundy Ranch standoff, Malheur Wildlife Refuge Occupation, and many other places. As the law enforcement of the Executive Branches continues to blend more with the military and the continue, increasingly, to utilize brutal swinging of their sword against We The People, realize and know that we hold the ultimate power of our own arms and organization into militia. We need to have no fear of this tyranny. Tench Coxe said in an article "To the People of the United States," in the Pennsylvania Gazette, 1785:
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICAN FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. It is feared, then that we shall turn arms each a man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or [federal] Constitution hath given away that important right…? The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the [federal] or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
And, Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist No. 29 that an
"army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
In Federalist No. 46, Madison lauded: "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other Nation", is that the federal standing army (or Executive law enforcement/quasi-military) would be held in awe by popular militias ready to defend strong state governments and individual liberty, was part of the pro-Constitution philosophy developed by Coxe, Madison, Hamilton, and other Federalists. In another article by Tench Coxe – To the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania, PA Gazette (1787) he said:
"If a time of public contention shall hereafter arrive, the firm and ardent friends to liberty may know the length to which they can push their able opposition, on the foundation of the laws. Should their country's cause impel them further they will be acquainted with the hazard, and using their arms which Providence has put into their hands, will make a solemn appeal to the 'power above'."
Coxe wrote probably the most comprehensive section by section exposition on the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period. Coxe's remarks included the following:
"Civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
That "next article" became the Second Amendment as we know it today. Later on, Coxe wrote about how the game in Europe disarmed the commoners that kept the people continuously deprived of arms. The monarchs and lords could keep arms for self-defense and war-fighting locked up, and if they didn't allow anyone to hunt, then no one could keep arms and tyranny could go unchecked. Coxe's writings show the error in the cafeteria approach to the Second Amendment: The right to hunt is integral to the right to own private arms; the right to private arms is an essential part of both self-defense and of the public militia power. To be deprived of arms is, in the long run, to be deprived of a meaningful role in the governance of the Republic. While hunting might, at first, seem to have little to do with politics, there was a direct connection between anti-gun laws that affected a personal activity like hunting, and the advent of tyranny. Blackstone made exactly this point, as did each of the three major American constitutional treatise writers of antebellum America – Joseph Story, William Rawle, and St. George Tucker. To Coxe and his contemporaries, the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of every freeman to own, possess, carry, and use rifles, muskets, pistols, and other firearms for self-defense, hunting, and militia purposes, including resistance to oppression. Private arms were constitutionally protected, although uniformity for militia purposes suggested the wisdom of governmental purchase and distribution of public arms to the general populace. The right could be injured by disarmament laws, by over-reliance on standing armies, and by game laws that prevented individuals from learning how to use arms. I would add that today, the Federal Government has a new way of injuring our right to keep and bear arms through commerce. I don't think the Framers realized the insidious use of the Commerce Clause they added in Article 1 Section 8 to regulate and infringe on our Second Amendment. The might have added a provision to protect, or rather, exempt firearms commerce in America if they could have seen today how the Federal and State Legislatures utilize the Commerce Clause to disarm and heavily regulate arms instead of game laws, disarmament laws, or standing armies. The Supreme Court has favored their own side of being a member branch of the general government over the rights of the citizens and has ruled the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual" weapons like machine guns and short-barreled rifles. They have ignored the history and writings of Tench Coxe and others. The courts, by nature, are not going to protect us from tyranny. They are too slow of a process and when it comes to firearms, they are highly prejudiced. How can the citizens of America, or our militias, defend against foreign enemies or domestic ones, including government tyranny, if we can't have the means or the type of weaponry, to effectively defend against any threat to liberty, including threats from the Executives' military and militarized law enforcement? If the government could have their way, they would do just as the monarchs of old and new have done – enact disarming and hunting laws, and take anything they think is not necessary to life. But, it is not up to them, they have no delegated authority, there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal or State Governments to prohibit or regulate our personal birthright to keep and bear private arms of any kind. The abuse of the commerce power should be everyone's central concern. I warn that Congress has taken full advantage of their Commerce Clause authority and the Courts rigorously enforce and expand the abuse. They have rebelled against our Constitution. Its preamble says "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, we do establish and ordain this Constitution for the United States of America." In what way has all these gun control and regulating laws security my blessed liberty to keep and bear the arms that I made, or for anybody else's liberty? These laws have done the very opposite for me and many other citizens. They have turned us into criminals when we are only trying to exercise our Second Amendment personal rights.
My point has been that the answer to tyranny and oppression is to made an appeal to heaven, take up your arms and defend your own liberty and your neighbor's liberty, whether that neighbor lives in your neighborhood or in another state, we are all citizens here and are all equal targets to be terrorized. Militia is the organized answer to tyranny and oppression where you become disciplined in the use of arms. Tench Coxe, Jefferson, Madison, Smilie, Webster, Blackstone, and so many others, never talked about answering tyranny with petitions and protesting, because they learned the hard way that those actions don't work. But, they did find that arms and militia are far more persuasive and response is faster. Remember the Bundy Ranch standoff, when tyranny showed up at Cliven's door and militia and citizens showed up with arms, it was the tyrant government who left. Or, how about the Sugar Pine Mine Security operation, when tyranny threatened again, militia and citizens showed up with arms and it was the government thugs who backed off again. Wherever tyranny threatens, when it's right, We the People should be answering by bearing our arms. The two hurdles we must overcome are one – Fear. Everyone must put aside their fear of the government and gather your wits, conjure up some courage. Remember what Jefferson said: "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." And two – all the division, arguing, bickering, lies, scamming, thieving, backstabbing, smearing, drama, dick-measuring disrespectfulness, pridefulness drunkenness, pity-parties, name-calling, distrust, falsifying, strife and all other dishonorable behavior has got to stop. The government is never going to stop with the tyranny until we all come together. After doing my part at the Bundy Ranch, until the day I was arrested, on December 6, 2015, I dedicated my life to patriot's work and everywhere I went, every security operation I participated in, I witnessed the dishonorable behaviors listed above. Every operation was threatened by those things more than the threats posed by the government. If we can't trust each other, our cause may be lost. On a positive note, I have me and worked with some most outstanding Patriots, and I am thankful for their honorable conduct.
Honor. Courage. Commitment.
Return to Barbeau - a Voice from Prison main page