No products in the cart.


Lexington Resolution on Militia-Suitable Firearms Looks like a Calculated Insult

ScreenHunter_07 Apr. 11 16.22
Robert Rotberg urges passage of his resolution calling for the Selectmen of Lexington to beg the state of Massachusetts for even more citizen disarmament. (Lexington town meeting video)

“Article 34 receives a ‘yes’ vote from Lexington Town Meeting Members,” Gun Owners’ Action League alerted members last Thursday. The vote was to “initiate a ‘town wide discussion’ to pass a resolution urging the legislature to pass more restrictive laws related to firearms ownership.”

A GOAL blog post updated members on the April 6 meeting in which the vote took place, a meeting where that discussion being invited was closed down, leaving concerned citizen who’d taken the time to show up without a chance to have their say.

“For those that don’t know, Article 34 started as a ban on many commonly owned firearms and magazines,” the post explains. “This was quickly changed to a non-binding resolution when Lexington’s board of selectmen and chief of police refused to support a ban of any sort.”

It’s true enough that a mere “nonbinding resolution” represents a tremendous scaling back of the original subversive attack on the right to keep and bear arms (scroll to page 23):

This article would prohibit the manufacture, sale, ownership, or possession of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines in the Town of Lexington.

The driving force behind that intolerable affront to liberty was no doubt inspired by the Supreme Court’s reluctance to even hear such cases, let alone overturn such local rulings. Refusal to grant cert to Friedman v Highland Park means gun-grabbers who perceive the political climate will let them get away with it have no reason not to try for everything they get.

Fortunately for Lexington, the politicians aren’t quite there yet, as was evident last month when gun rights supporters called it “an affront to liberty” and three members of the Board of Selectmen and the chief of police disavowed the ban. That’s what led the chief plotter behind the proposal to scale it back to a resolution.

The prohibition enthusiast responsible is “town resident Robert Rotberg, the founding director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Program on Intrastate Conflict and president emeritus of the World Peace Foundation.” Rotberg is a career globalist (and failed candidate for selectman himself), evidently intent on proving the truism that for “progressives” every day is Opposite Day – how else would one explain someone from Lexington who thinks it’s a peace-promoting idea for government to disarm citizens in a town that prides itself on a statue of Captain John Parker?

What could go wrong?

Still, the willingness of town officials to accept a resolution indicates how far the heirs of the Minutemen have strayed from the principles of their forebears, conditions that were apparent when Oath Keepers conducted an oath ceremony in spite of the revocation of a permit to hold it on Lexington Green. And GOAL notes that even scaled back, Rotberg’s attack on founding principles presents “two-fold” concerns.

“It has a pre-determined outcome, ‘to inform the Great and General Court of its concern that existing Massachusetts laws regarding assault weapons (M.G.L. c. 140, § 131M) may not sufficiently protect citizens of the Commonwealth, and Lexington,’” GOAL advises. In other words, it opens the door to what should be regarded as “Intolerable Acts.”

The second objection: It places moderation in the hands of Bloomberg collaborators, and citizen disarmament zealots in their own right, the League of Women Voters.

That Rotberg chose to profane what many consider hallowed ground seems more than a matter of mere hometown activism. Taking his abominable subversion statewide shows a fundamental personal and political hostility to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

As for the resolution process being short on inputs from those who believe in that right, bear two realities in mind: When the antis call for a “conversation on guns,” all they really mean is they want to dictate terms of further surrender. Understanding that, there’s really only one response such a call merits from patriotic Americans:

 “No. Your move.”

[YouTube poster “Bluesmovers” has posted several video recordings of the Lexington Article 34 resolution meetings. Click here to bring up the list.]


Rotberg must be on crack:

…Harvard professor Robert Rotberg is now citing Cracked as an authoritative source on firearms…

If you think about the insanity of citizen disarmament and a monopoly of violence, it only makes sense.

Further discussion on the calculated Lexington insult is archived over at The Meat and Potatoes Show. Listen here.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. HOW DARE HE EVEN TRY TO MAKE THE CITIZENS OF LEXINGTON DISARM?????? Especially NOW, a mere week from the anniversary of the deaths of John Brown, Samuel Hadley, Caleb Harrington, Jonathon Harrington, Robert Munroe, Isaac Muzzey, Asahel Porter, Jonas Parker and Jonathon Harrington who was mortally wounded and eventually died of his injuries on the Battle Green of Lexington on the morning of April 19, 1775? I would bitch slap this idiot myself. Men put up their lives, fortune and honor to form this country and he wants to take away their weapons? What about all the Minutemen groups in that area? Where are theY ON THIS ISSUE?

    1. the criminals within our government SWEAR AN OATH AND IMMEDIATELY DISREGARD IT…There is a SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL FOR THOSE NIN COME POOPS… State Constitutions violate the 2nd amendment and imo there should be no gun laws in separate states since the 2nd amendment clearly states…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Furthermore our right to bear arms is NOT from our govt…

    2. And also especially after the elites of America have infested the country with an unknown number of primitive people, infiltrated with violent “armies of Mansons” (Pamela Geller’s phrase)?

    3. My understanding is most of the minute men groups are doing the same as they’ve done every time we get shit on.. bitch about it on here!

    4. Yes, Lillywhite my question is why don’t the men that are proud of their heritage and grateful for the sacrifice of these men’s lives, don’t just tar and feather that non-American communist and lay him on a row boat with a gallon of water a weeks worth of MRE’s and fishing tackle.Give his boat a push out of Boston Harbor and let him go for England. Or maybe China or N. Korea would be better.

  2. Robert Rotberg, a drowning man committed to dragging others down with him. “No” is the only answer to which he is entitled.

  3. Of the Great Citizens of Lexington and Beyond

    Let it be known that our Rights, Part of the First, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

    Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

    Along with all of us being free and equal, we have certain natural, essential, and unalienable Rights that belong to each individual, they do not belong to a body politic or government but each and every citizen who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This extends not only to the enjoyment of our individual lives and liberties but also defending our lives and liberties, not only possessing our property but also protecting our property.

    Article X. Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary…

    Each individual has obligations, these obligations again do not belong to a body politic or government but each and every citizen who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    The Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment) was added to the United States Constitution because of a group called the anti-federalist to protect their State and individual Rights, and this is why we have the Second Amendment, “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.”

    Bill of Rights Pennsylvania 1776
    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Bill of Rights Virginia 1776
    Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Declaration of Rights North Carolina 1776
    Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Bill of Rights Massachusetts 1780 (John Adams)
    Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

    The Supreme Court agreed, “We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions (Bill of Rights) is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.” D.C v. Heller.

    There are those who would subvert and pervert the original definition of Militia, and to use it out of context. As the United States Supreme Court has done many times, we can find the definition of Militia in the original documents of the time. The Militia Act of 1792 ascribes the power to Organize a Militia from the Unorganized Militia being each individual.

    “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”

    The times may have changed to include every free able-bodied citizen who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof but every free able-bodied citizen being part of the Unorganized Militia of citizenship has not.

    “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed…”

    There are some who would argue that this part would give us the Right to own tanks and other heavy artillery, they are wrong. This means only what you can carry or bear but it also means you shall carry what is sufficient and good, if they had fully automatic weapons back then this would likely be included. From the time this was written our Militia system has become more complex dividing in to several branches, from our National Guard to our local police departments. If the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were to be perverted and subverted, there would be inevitable consequences to all levels.

    I encourage all to read and understand the full context of our highest laws as Natural Law or as some may say, common sense of it all. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not there to fight some tyrannical government or only there to fight invasions as some have argued but to replace and prevent a tyrannical government. It is an important part of our form of government that prevents a body politic or government control of our Rights, our certain natural, essential, and unalienable Rights that belongs to each individual. It may not be perfect but as our founders have argued, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” Therefore, any and all acts to infringe on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are acts of Treason, local police departments on up are obligated by their Oath of Office to act accordingly to the laws they have sworn to uphold. As are the citizen who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof are obligated by Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to voice their opposition to their Rights being subverted and perverted.

    1. “There are some who would argue that this part would give us the Right to own tanks and other heavy artillery, they are wrong. ”

      From an old US General and ex-American President whose name I bet is recognized by many, George Washington (make sure that you read the last line please):

      “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”

      My question is how can they do that if military weaponry is not available to train with and use when needed to stop invasions of our nation as is required of us by our US Constitution?

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“

      Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them.”

      If the first wall of our nations defense is the Militia as is required by the US Constitution and reiterated here by Thomas Jefferson then military weapons are required for the Militias.

      Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each 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 BIRTH-RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… 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.” (caps are mine for emphasis)

      I’d say that Mr. Tenche Coxe said it pretty clearly, wouldn’t you? But there is more…

      Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

      Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people … entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
      And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

      Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

      Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

      Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “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.
      “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

      I’d say that there is a preponderance of evidence that you are incorrect.

      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,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2]

      1. I am of the firm belief that the ‘slow boil of rights’ will continue until the People recognize that the 2nd was put in place so that we would maintain the Militia that has the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.
        If we are to argue what weapons such a body need have, then we’ve only contributed to the destruction of the 2nd. Obviously, by what you’ve written here, it was the intent of the Founders that we would continue with our duty, to not only our individual property, but also to the our local community, and the nation at large.
        I don’t see any other logical conclusion to draw from all that I’ve read other than the fact that we must all contribute to Militia, and that includes the ability to drive a tank and man its weapons.
        Excellent post!

      2. Cal, the preponderance of evidence was something I was trying to avoid because of length. Most certainly, “the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it” and this would include the manufacturing. I had only stated, “From the time this was written our Militia system has become more complex dividing into several branches, from our National Guard to our local police departments. If the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were to be perverted and subverted, there would be inevitable consequences to all levels.” And yes, our original Militia system of government is almost gone.

        Down the road a bit from my home is the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the Springfield Armory in Springfield Massachusetts. George Washington personally approved this site keeping our military supplies independent for about 191 years and many conflicts. Today we have Smith & Wesson and other manufactures in this area but it is mostly a blighted wasteland now compared to what it once was. This angers me much, we have few craftsman such as myself remaining who would be able to keep our military supplies independent, replaced by those who seek State welfare as a craft and I am holding back a much longer rant on this topic for now.

        I agree with what you are saying but for now, the fight is with what we can carry…

  4. In this region there is an all out total attack on the 2A. I was at the meeting in Lexington. It is happening threw-out the state and propagating quickly. The sheer numbers of foreign nationals that made up the 196 voting committee members showed clearly that we are and have been invaded.

  5. “The vote was to “initiate a ‘town wide discussion’ to pass a resolution urging the legislature to pass more restrictive laws related to firearms ownership.””

    Not one position within our government has the delegated authority to do anything about the people’s right to own any type of weapon they want to, and to train with them. It is forbidden by not being delegated to those who serve within our governments – state and federal. It is a power that the people HELD ON TO and did NOT delegate as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment itself makes absolutely clear. It does not matter what position – stat e or federal – or if 100% of the people vote for it, until we change our government from the US Constitution they do NOT have that authority. Please stop acting as if they do. It just encourages them to usurp more things that are OUT OF THEIR REACH, NOT DELEGATED.

    Thanks and God Bless

    If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

    Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

    1. I love the Quote by Chief Tecumseh. Another quote I believe in is,” It matters not how you die, but how well you die!”

  6. This is “bluesmovers”. Thanks for the link to my channel. I’m a pro Liberty person living in Massachusetts.. I also perceive a type of foreign influence in what is happening here. Perhaps things like this may help more who are asleep to wake up to the tyranny in their midst. We must counter these moves by the globalists, because if they succeed in disarming America they will be even more bold with changes which may be completely intolerable. Here is a link to the Lexington playlist. I will add camera 2 footage at some point (a wide angle view which should cover any breaks in camera 1 footage) and may possibly stitch it all together into a single video, perhaps a highlight reel. And yes I am a musician on my website. LEXINGTON:

    1. If I lived in Lexington, I’d be adding photos from this video to my file of local officers and their home addresses. One should always know who the local bureaucrats and enforcers are and where to find them. You might want to initiate your own discussion of the principles of liberty with them someday when they want to be hard to find.

  7. IMHO only, I’ve always believed that liberals seem to think that the Militias when called out would rush to their meeting area where the “Government” would arm them, UH no! they rushed to a meeting area bringing their own weapons, rifles, pistols, hawks and knives and were expected to know how to use them.
    Liberals can’t grasp the thought that some men are not only willing but able to go forth to fight for freedom and willingly furnish their own equipment. But then again liberals grasp little but their own opinion.

  8. Total idiots, losers, and traitors. It is really sad how many people there are in our country today that have absolutely no understanding of the word “patriot.”

  9. This is way when it comes time to vote make sure who you are voting for are pro gun and pro Second Amendment.

  10. A couple of days ago I received a communication from the Tea Party in which they said point blank that the elites of America are in the process of replacing the American population with 3rd worlders. It was the first time I had seen any organization of this size and recognition make such a strong statement.

    What could help the elites with their murderous and sinister this agenda more than disarming Americans?

    1. Great comment Jeanette……You can analyze and discuss it any way you wish, but the bottom line is as follows: “The strength of the Constitution lies in the will of the people who defend it” and Jefferson’s quote…..”The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants”…….it is, therefore, unfortunately, an absolute fact that “we” will have to respond as necessary to keep this Sovereign Constitutional Republic as we have always known it….Free !!

      1. Well said Vinny and true.These people or should i say this way of thinking will never go away. It has haunted societies throughout history.There will always be people who want to tell everyone else what they should or shouldn’t be doing and ready to enforce their ways by the barrel of a gun.Or whatever force necessary.

  11. Regarding requirements for membership on the Lexington MA Town Committee.

    Notice the word “citizens” in the description of the make up of the Town Committee in Lexington MA.   It doesn’t say “residents”,  and I think it’s reasonable to assume that would mean United States citizens.   So, with all of the thick foreign accents coming from the committee members who spoke at Town Meeting isn’t it also reasonable to ask to see their birth certificates or naturalization papers?

    From the town website

     “Elected members: 21 citizens elected from each of nine precincts for three-year staggered terms;
    At-large members: the Board of Selectmen, Town Counsel, Town Clerk, the School Committee chairman, the Appropriation Committee chairman, and representatives to the General Court (state representatives and state senators); The Town Moderator, elected annually to facilitate all town meeting sessions and preserve order and decorum.”

    1. United States
      Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States

      More than 20 states and territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners’ right to vote for all elections; the last one was Arkansas in 1926.[115] Voting rights at the local level were later granted to non-citizens by a few town governments, either for school boards (New York until the board members were no longer elected in 2002, Chicago) or for municipal councils in small towns in Maryland (Barnesville (already since 1918), Martin’s Additions and Somerset (since 1976), Takoma Park (since 1991) and Garrett Park (since 1999), Chevy Chase Section 3 and Chevy Chase Section 5).[1][116] No foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US as of 2014.


    1. I understand your frustration, I do. But…

      It is most important that we remove and replace those serving within our governments as the US Constitution requires of us, and in a constitutional manner.

      So what does the USN Constitution require be done with those believed to have committed crimes? First an investigation, remember, the *Grand Jury Investigation is our tool, it is ours to use, to call forth with NO) explanation needed to those who serve within our governments, and to use it if we, and for whatever reason we want to use it.

      *“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

      “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

      “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

      “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

      “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

      “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

      “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (End Grand jury quote)

      If it is verified that a person currently serving, or that has served within our government has most likely committed a crime and evidence gathered, then charges must be brought (yes, I do realize that some like the Clinton’s; Obama and the rest of his “mob” that is committing First Degree Murder have way too much evidence against them, etc – they can just be charged).

      Then the lawful, constitutional Militia of the people who have been trained as the congress requires the military to be trained, and also educated in the US Constitution/state Constitution to which they are bound may arrest them if it is felt they will run or an arrest is necessary to keep others safe from them. Only as much force as is necessary is needed to arrest them just as any other criminal.

      Then a trial where they have the chance to face their accusers and present their defense. Remember that judges duties are also laid out in the US Constitution, and that they are ONLY allowed to retain the office they are occupying for as long as they use “Good Behaviour” while in office.

      The US Constitution lays out what “Good Behaviour” is; doing their duty as constitutionally assigned and taking and KEEPING the required Oath/Oaths. There really is not much for them to do to stay in “Good Behaviour”, but it is surprising that so many seem to find it difficult to do so. Removal is by jury trial as all crimes are required to be here in America, or the option of.

      The prosecution must be constitutionally and lawfully done because we are removing the corrupt, those that pervert the US Constitution in the guise of following it, and replacing them with (hopefully) those not corrupted and most educated in the US Constitution.

      Thomas Jefferson: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”.

      Why is it critical that we behave as we are required to by the US Constitution? Because if we are not doing as it requires we are doing the same thing as those who are working to destroy our nation from within. Because we will open ourselves up to foreign invasions to “defend our government” when it is we who are standing up for the US Constitution and replacing the domestic enemies and traitors to the American people. Because everything we do will be analyzed on the net by the world. We must go back to being an EXAMPLE to the world, not an aggressor.

      It is also VERY important to realize this by Patrick Henry:

      “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

      And these;

      George Washington: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

      James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

  13. …kind of like trying to build a mosque on Ground Zero. Hubris squared…We are infected with a very deadly disease. Just like these miscreants to try to deprive us of the only known cure! 😉

    1. And how to that one Chip, all of the talk sounds good, but how in the world could this ever be carried out in one accord?

  14. The sites of the American Revolution are being neglected. If you go to Lexington you will see individual stone monuments to SHIPS that bear the name of Lexington. You do not see monuments with the names of the fallen. One monument on the Green does acknowledges the dead as a group however. The Lexington library situated almost on top of the Green has no special section on the events of that famous day. It is essentially like any other library in any other town. I believe there was a small room with American history, but it was very unimpressive and I sensed no sense of deep respect for the history of Lexington/Concord. The globalist have destroyed our wonderful history in the minds of our youth. We have to counter this.

Comments are closed.