No products in the cart.


David Codrea – There’s a Word for That!

There’s a Word for That

Trump: ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’ [More]

That’s called “tyranny.” No prominent Democrat would be allowed to get away with saying that without enraging every gun owner rights advocate out there.

You don’t have enough enemies who want to see you impeached and even imprisoned?

I strongly suggest you rethink what you just blurted out and then explain yourself in detail and apologize for misspeaking, because if that wasn’t just running your mouth before thinking it through, you’ve just put yourself on equal footing with the worst of them.

Due process as an afterthought, Mr. President? How about if we have Mueller do that with you?

Photo credit: screen shot from video here


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.








    1. It would appear so. Hopefully he was just egging on the democrats to put enough anti gun into the bill to kill it. We shall soon see.

      1. Oh, how I wish you to be correct. Methinks he is so used to getting his way, that as soon as the wrong actors/advisors surround him, he will go full on Progressive/Fascist. We are seeing his base advisors falling by the day, and look at who is filling the voids.

    2. It’s possible, but I doubt it. Trump is skilled at mentioning something our side doesn’t like in order to get the other side to start talking. He did this on immigration, offering amnesty and a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers, knowing that Democrats wouldn’t accept it as part of an overall package. And he was right. I think his tactics are designed to show ONE thing — that Democrats are not the least bit interested in solving problems like immigration or gun violence. They’re only interested in having them as campaign issues. If they wanted to stop mass school shootings, they would have done so in 2009 to 2011 when they had near veto-proof majorities in moth houses of Congress. THEY DID NOTHING ON EITHER IMMIGRATION OR GUN VIOLENCE! In fact, the only think they accomplished was to double the sales of guns.

  1. Before the election I warned that this guy could easily be swayed into Unconstitutionality. Was treated like a kook, and told the sit down and shut up. Surprise!

      1. If legislation ends up on Trump’s desk to take away individuals’ rights without due process, and he signs it, I’ll join you in not only loudly criticizing it but marching on Washington. Until then, cut him some slack. A lot of what he says and tweets is just designed to tweak the Left and throw them off balance. You have to watch what Trumps does and not so much what he says, and he’s checked off so many of the boxes that we all wanted him to do, it’s beyond stupid to throw him under the bus for a statement that’s not likely to ever be implemented.

      2. “Cutting them Slack” is exactly where we get in trouble. This “incremental Slack” we have allowed has provided for a serious uphill battle to retain our Rights. How is it “Beyond Stupid” to call someone out for their words, when they are clearly suggest an assault on our Constitution?

  2. “That’s called “tyranny.””

    Are you sure that is the correct word to use? The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution found in…

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

    Notice that the Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

    Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Three important elements must be present for an offense to constitute treason, they are:
    — an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
    — intent, followed by
    — action to violate that obligation.

    President Trump, along with all who run for/ran for office should know/have known the US Constitution to which he is Oath bound to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend”. The US Constitution REQUIRES that all Americans be armed and trained in the use of those arms (“regulated” is the word they use meaning “trained”). The Bill of Rights lists some, not all, of the things that is NOT under governmental control, but retained by the people to decide themselves. In then Second Amendment it actually forbids in writing within the supreme Law and Contract that anyone who serves within our government has any type of LAWFUL authority over the weapons of the people – what type, how many, etc with the words “shall not be infringed”. Keyword found in there is “not” (definition of “not” – used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition). Those who serve within our governments are prohibited to mess with the people and their weapons.

    So he is knowingly and willingly going against our legitimate government in this action he proposes, that is “intent”. He, and all those who serve within our governments – state and federal, have an “obligation of allegiance to the legal order”. Why do I say this, because all who serve as US President’s are held to the higher standard by the Oath they must take and KEEP, to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the US Constitution. That is their LAWFUL duty they MUST do. By going against the US Constitution in his words, and his actions, he is NOT preserving the US Constitution as is required of him. He is not protecting the US Constitution as is also required of him. Nor is he defending the US Constitution, instead he is working against the “legal order”. So would anyone who implements this treason, they would then by implementing it not only be treasonous in those actions, but also a *terrorist in performing them against the American people.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “In Article III, Section 3, Clause 2, the Constitution allows for an “Attainder” in only one instance: “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” But in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, the Constitution requires that “[n]o person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” So an “Attainder of Treason” cannot come about through a “bill of attainder”, because it requires a prior conviction based upon extraordinary evidence in the course of ordinary judicial proceedings. Otherwise, the Constitution absolutely outlaws all “Bill[s] of Attainder”, whether issued by Congress or the States. As to Congress, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 provides that “[n]o Bill of Attainder * * * shall be passed.” As to the States, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides that “[n]o State shall * * * pass any Bill of Attainder[.]” These prohibitions apply to both “bills of attainder” and “bills of pains and penalties”. See Ex parte Garland, 74 U.S. (4 Wallace) 333 (1867); Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wallace) 277 (1867); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

    Dr. Vieira: “… ‘treason’ (Section 2385) and ‘misprision of treason’ (Section 2382)… Under Section 802 (Title 18), “domestic terrorism” is defined as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”. Once Section 802 of the Patriot act was engaged, Section 806 of the act provides the authority to seize “All assets, foreign or domestic–of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States,”

    James Madison warned us about kind of government – state or federal – that exercises arbitrary power: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” Essay on Property, 1792 and Madison calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

    U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.

    Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;” See:

  3. Remember Trump’s words during the debates: “Everything is negotiable.” Apparently that includes our God-given rights.

  4. I agree the POTUS statement was dumbass at best. But where is the same anger and outrage at the unconditional property confiscation, and unconstitutional confiscation of monies and unconstitutional confiscation of ALL guns when you are home invaded by an unconstitutional raid? WTF???

    Bring your yacht back from Canada, have it force boarded by the Coast Guard, have it confiscated after they find something they deem illegal is brought back. Wake up!

    You get pulled over for a tail light out…the officer intentionally escalates the situation…your guns are confiscated…. unconstitutional as it gets? Where’s the outrage?

    Trump is playing people as fools they are. He knows Congress won’t do anything. Call your congressman and the WH with your rage over illegal confiscation of property and money. Then that God hat the Hitlery cartel is not in the WH….or those other globalist candidates.

    1. Have been screaming about all the abuses for 30 years. Lost a great job over it!

      WGP, it appears people are being even further lulled to sleep. This is will be a rough battle, for they know not what their rights are, nor do they even understand the governmental restraints of the Constitution.

      As far as that Droidthumbosis. I get that too. BTW Droid is Google, but it wouldn’t matter cuz Apple uses Googles Cloud services for their products. Just read that yesterday.

  5. Am bringing an idea I had 3 years ago out of dry dock. “Constitutional Reaffirmation and Accountability Act.” Let’s face reality, until we hold these Legislators, Judges Agencies, and Presidents accountable for the Constitution, things will get worse. Heck, this President is advocating a direct “Bill of Attainder.” If they had to answer to civil forfeitures and loss of right ex post facto, crap would change virtually overnight.

    Here’s how it would work; Let them produce their bills and regulations, then force them to run it through the Supreme Courts. Then, rather than spend our dime running it up and down the chains of lawyers, instead we have a “We the People” reaffirmation referendum. After we give OUR government the chance to do right by the Constitution, we by 2/3 vote find the reg or law to be Unconstitutional, anyone who voted for the Affirmative, shall be found in felonious violation and subjected to the same forfeitures, and rights violations they impose on us. Things would literally change overnight!

    1. The supreme courts issue OPINIONS. All courts do.

      The US constitution itself has it written into that contract that IT is the supreme LAW of this land. You do understand that not only can, and should, the people call up a Grand Jury Investigation, but we can call up a Grand Jury as well. Those are the PEOPLE”S tools, not for those who serve within our government, that is just another misuse of power.

      Grand Jury – “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)

      1. W e are trying to get there.Anyone interested go to


        The UUSCLGJ is comprised of fifty Grand Jurys each unified amongst the counties within their respective States. All fifty States have unified nationally as an assembly of 1000’s of People in the name of We the People to suppress through our Courts of Justice subverts acting under color of law within our governments

  6. the plans for a New world order have been laid many years ago…they are still in play….and will stop when enough people believe that THEY will be enslaved as planned..and do what must be done to end it,,,,,..till that day we get what we get ….and no matter how much we try to correct the events around us …’the plan’ continues on to its final end…you and I will see that day as it rapidly approaches…and we will be tested…I promise you words,emails,letters and phone calls will not solve anything…the ONLY remedy that will work will be that which History has shown works when faced with tyrants and oppression…FORCE…..and no surrender till the enemy and its cronies /minions are dispatched to hell…..imho

  7. I’ve revamped my “CRAA” proposal. It’s not catchy enough and does’t infringe on the governments rights enough so here’s the latest and greatest.

    Am bringing out my “Constitutional Reaffirmation and Accountability Act” idea with a slight twist.
    All of the 2/3 people’s referendum to determine Constitutionality would remain in place. 1 year in jail and three years probation for any government official that votes in the affirmative an Unconstitutional law or regulation. On top of that we apply the taking of their enumerated rights for life. Here’s the revision.
    Instead of “CRAA” we create the “People’s Agency,” much like our servant government does now by granting ourselves a “Title of Nobility.” Of course we give the People’s Agency a “Title of Nobility” just like our government does. Then we Create without legislation, the Constitutional Reaffirmation and Accountability People’s Regulation,” or “CRAPR” for short. After all, the next government agent, judge, legislator, or executive that enacts an Unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder,” or Grants themselves a “Title of Nobility,” or issue punishments “Ex Post Facto” would never want to be sent to the CRAPR, right?

    1. Don’t forget about Amendment IX:
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      Merely because it is NOT in the Constitution, does not make it a Constitutional law…

Comments are closed.