March 12th, 2013

Oklahoma Senator Gets Down To It


-

Gun_Obama

-

Guns? Second Amendment? Rights? This gentleman from Oklahoma has given one of the best impromptu speeches on the subject I’ve ever seen. His “three branches of government”  theory sounds great to me. Enjoy – and forward to politicians everywhere, eh?

-

-

Salute!

Elias Alias, editor




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

9 Responses to “Oklahoma Senator Gets Down To It”

  1. 1
    csaaphill Says:

    yay!!!!
    but hear this a women in NJ had her Guns confiscated for nothing more than citing the Constitution at some tax thing. women who let herself in a hospitol not forcibly. her medication had some bad side effects on her so her doctor told her to check into a hospital, or mental ward. in caifornia so her husbands guns were confiscated.
    lines in the sand being crossed people!!! check out the story’s at the blaze or maybe infowars.

  2. 2
    FedUp Says:

    This guy ROCKS!!!

  3. 3
    Deborah Says:

    F-16’s, not one but twenty in the enemies hands? This should wake up all active military and all civilians, backing enemy in Syria, and guns to mexican warlords. Is the Roman Nero reincarnated?

  4. 4
    Cal Says:

    He is correct about the three branches of the American government being: 1) We the People”
    2) The States 3) the Federal Government.

    Evidence of this:
    Preamble to the Bill of Rights

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

    Then the Bill of Rights listing EXACTLY which way they can or cannot be abridged because they are unalienable, ours naturally. The Founders used the word “unalienable” as defined by William Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England”:

    “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”

    “We the People” agreed to them being forfeited if, for instance, the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which a person may be punished by their loss of freedom. HOWEVER, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right(s) is/are restored.

    Modern definiation: Inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”. “protected from being removed or taken away”.
    Unalienable: “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away.” “Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.”

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

    Amendment II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Then there is this (from the tenthamendmentcenter.com) concerning Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”:

    “Considering that there is no possible connection that can be made, as has done the Supreme Court, with that which are “further declaratory and restrictive clauses [on Congress]” which the People have a right to have obeyed by the Federal government and have enforced by their respective States (making plain it is not the States but the Federal government that is subordinate to the Bill of Rights, which also makes it unquestionably plain as to which are the sovereigns and the one that is not), there is nothing that can be construed in the 14th such that the restrictions placed on Congress by the Bill of Rights are to also be placed on the States, which is impossible because of the construction of the instrument and FORM of government that was ratified.

    For the States to somehow violate the 14th based on such an extraordinarily repugnant interpretation one or more States would have to force or conspire with Congress to violate the Bill of Rights — OR A STATE WOULD HAVE TO FAIL TO ACT WHEN CONGRESS OVERSTEPPED ITS BOUNDS.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress any sort of power to enforce the Bill of Rights on the States instead of on themselves [Congress].

    Ironically, using a plain and proper interpretation, the 14th actually has a completely opposite meaning and enforcement. Instead of compelling the States to impose the Bill of Rights upon them selves, it compels Congress to compel the States to enforce the Bill of Rights upon Congress by compelling the States to NOT enforce laws made by Congress that plainly “abridges the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States” which must include those guarantees plainly spelled out in the Bill of Rights as “further declaratory and restrictive clauses [on Congress]“.

    … the States are NOT violating the 14th by failing to enforce the Bill of Rights upon themselves, but for failing to ACTIVELY enforce the Bill of Rights on Congress (which is what the States are supposed to do anyway, even without the 14th); — because, by failing to ACTIVELY enforce the Bill of Rights on Congress is to directly violate that plain provision in the 14th that says, “No State shall make OR ENFORCE any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”…

    Furthermore, what was made very plain in the FIRST Congress during the debates over the Bill of Rights, is that the ratified FORM cannot be altered — even by amendment — without sending the instrument back to the People for re-ratification of the new FORM (as was done for the current constitution). This was a concern regarding the proposed amendments — that none could alter the ratified form; otherwise, the Constitution would have to be sent back to the People.

    Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

    The 14th Amendment further clarifies that US citizens are to be immune from certain encroachments and abuses of powers by the Federal government.

    Since the Bill of Rights put additional RESTRAINTS on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people AND powers that belong to the States. No where in the Bill of Rights is the word “granted” used. But in the US Constitution the word “granted” is used a lot. Examples:
    Article. I, Section. 1; All legislative Powers herein granted… Plus it says EXACTLY hwo they will be chosen.
    It divides up the powers assigned to the 3 federal branches: The executive Power shall be vested in…
    and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
    Section 3… He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…
    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    Article. VI.
    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Article. VII.
    The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
    The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
    Attest William Jackson Secretary
    done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

    Preamble to the US Constitution: Preamble:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  5. 5
    mike Says:

    @ Cal, after reading so many of your comments over the last yr. You seem to understand Constitution law both Fed. and state very well. Even giving me some advise in my own blue state of WA. I do not have a head for these things, but if you could get this post and your comment to all of the blue/unconstitutional states, particularly CA,CO,MO,NY, it could have a great impact.Even if the progressives did not go along with what you have to say they would at least have to admit that they are in violation of the law. I hope you will read and consider this.

  6. 6
    Linda Says:

    Hey Gang, What is the name of the Senator who gave the impromptu speech. I heard his first name, “Nathan” but not his last name. Thanks! Linda

  7. 7
    Cal Says:

    Mike, I am still learning.

    But it is pretty basic overall. If the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of this land and everything the feds do MUST be in pursuance of it to be lawful. Then everything they do that weakens it, goes against it, or tries to modify or destroy our unalienable rights – plus if all of our unalienable rights are not listed there – then all of that is unlawful.

    I also realize from studying history that just because it is unlawful does not mean that there are not ignorant or traitorous people who will follow orders and enforce them. That is what we have happening here today.

    The thing is, so many use the excuse that there are ’so many laws how can they tell if what they are being required to enforce is lawful or not’. That part is, in a way true; the part of it that says that there are “so many laws”. But the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not THAT long. If it does not meet THAT standard then it is not lawful – do NOT enforce it. It pretty muchis just that simple.

    You can take online Constitution classes for free at http://constitution.hillsdale.edu, repesat, for free. You can read the US Constitution, the Federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, parts of “Constitution Denied”, tenthamendmentcenter.com, etc all online. I am not sure how far you are willing to go – but you also check out framers quotes to get a fair idea of things if you want it all in small bytes, or if you want to get a feel for how they understood it to be.

    Anything I write that you want to use – feel free. Please check out for yourself that it is accurate for YOUR understanding of the law, bill, etc if I do not quote the law, bill, etc itself but “interpret it. You may view it differently. If you do, let me know. READ your state’s constitution and oath of office.

    For example New Yorks Constitution (Notice the first 3 words of the Preamble):

    THE CONSTITUTION
    (1)[Preamble] We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

    ARTICLE I, Bill Of Rights, [Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to dispense with primary elections in certain cases], Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers, except that the legislature may provide that there shall be no primary election held to nominate candidates for public office or to elect persons to party positions for any political party or parties in any unit of representation of the state from which such candidates or persons are nominated or elected whenever there is no contest or contests for such nominations or election as may be prescribed by general law.
    [Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions] §12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

    –> Yet they have an unlawful and intensive spy network there.

    ARTICLE XII (9), Defense, [Defense; militia], Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

    –> Who are the militia? The people are the militia.

    ARTICLE XIII, Public Officers, [Oath of office; no other test for public office], Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ……, according to the best of my ability;” and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party.

    I got heavily involved in the law part because of a comment made to me by a “Constitutional Lawyer” from a prestigious law school (I was posting as “knine” then).

    Some of the lawyers comment: “You wrote, “If they do not keep that Oath, they no longer meet the legal requirements for them to stay in that position or office and must be replaced. They also make themselves Domestic Enemies of the USA and are prosecutable.” I recall reading this opinion before, so obviously you believe it strongly. But where is the legal authority for these propositions, Knine? Is there a law, a provision of our Constitution, or some judicial decision that supports your espousal of these declarations? If you can cite me to it, I’d appreciate it a lot; in fact, I’d go an study it.
    But, Knine, as the holder of a Stanford Law School Master’s Degree that emphasized Constitutional Law, let me be the first to inform you that there is absolutely nothing in the law, in our Constitution or anywhere else that supports your beliefs. And, even if there were, neither you nor any other citizen would have standing (the right to bring an action because it adversely affects you personally) to bring a suit. At bottom, you’re a very upset citizen without an ounce of legal or constitutional knowledge who offers unvarnished opinions that are completely off the wall.”

    So I went to prove him incorrect in his assumptions, which I did do only because law schools – however presetigious they are – like other schools, decide what curriculum the students are going to cover, and students rarely go beyond getting that degree. Plus because I am stubborn, and believe(d) that the US Constitution is NOT just a piece of paper, but is the highest LAW of our land. He is correct that I cannot personallymake the arrest and hold the trial. But I can badger thsoe who swear to uphold the oath they took to do so. I can fight to remove all judges who are not using constitutional law, keeping their lawfully required oath.

    My belief in the legitimate government of our nation is stronger now then it was then because of it.

    I was willing to apologize if I was wrong; and then have to look at our government differently. But the Oath is lawfully required. It IS legally binding. It is a lawful REQUIREMENT that all oath takers must keep to remain LAWFULLY in the position they are occupying. There are many precedents in civil and military throughout US history from presidents, to congress, to soldiers. Domestic enemies – keyword is “enemies” are criminals – even the FBI used to recognize that (in writing on their site). So don’t give me too much credit – unless it is for stubbornness.

  8. 8
    FedUp Says:

    @Linda

    Nathan Dahm

  9. 9
    Linda Says:

    Thanks, FedUP. I think I might just vote for him for President. Very impressive that one!

    Be well, Linda

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148