Blumenthal Delusion on Trump and Guns a Ploy for Attention and Disruption

14581355_1277612585602428_3118081662874623555_n

Only following orders, right guys? So much for their oath, when they willingly appear with Sen. Richard Blumenthal for a photo op aimed at disarming their countrymen. (Sen. Richard Blumenthal Facebook photo)

Calling Congress “complicit” for criminal murders using guns, Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal called on President-elect Donald Trump to “do the unpredictable” and support citizen disarmament edicts, PJ Media reports.

“It’s a Nixon to China moment for Donald Trump when he can defy the expectation, do the unpredictable – he likes doing the unpredictable – respond to a rally, which he also likes to do, and the rally is the America people who are clamoring and demanding action,” Blumenthal posited at a Capitol Hill rally exploiting families and survivors victimized by violent armed criminals. “Donald Trump has a legacy moment. When he can seize this opportunity, a historic opportunity, do the right thing and adopt these common-sense measures: background checks for every gun purchase, a ban on terrorists buying guns and ending the immunity, the legal immunity, unprecedented, unknown to any other industry for gun manufacturers. These are your ideas, Donald. We’ll give you credit for them.”

In other words, his bright idea is for Trump to betray the constituency that put him in power and embrace rejected policies that lost the election for Hillary Clinton. Blumenthal is suggesting Trump will do his dirty work for him, undermining the Bill of Rights by enacting edicts that are the kiss of political death anywhere but in blue state “progressive” enclaves. That’s what his partner in oath-breaking, Connecticut’s other senator, Chris Murphy unintentionally admitted, all the while trying to put a spin on reality to mask his on-the-ropes desperation.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes candidly assessed Blumenthal’s seemingly delusional plea:

This is the same as saying, “Do the unpredictable and cut your own political throat by violating your oath and your promise to your supporters to defend the Second Amendment, and act exactly the same as if Hillary had won.” What Trump should do instead is call these oath breaking politicians out as the blood dancers they are, who turn a blind eye to the reality that it is criminal street thugs and gang bangers who are killing each other en-mass in Democratic stronghold “sanctuary cities” such as Chicago [or New Haven, CT for that matter], where the gang-bangers have free reign to rule the streets without having to worry about local people taking out the trash (like the people of Mexico are starting to do with armed citizen patrols), since the law-abiding locals in such Democrat controlled cities are forbidden to carry guns for self defense.

The leftist answer is to always blame the law-abiding, decent gun owners for the gang-bangers’ obsession with violence and murder. They don’t blame the gang culture, and the hip-hop culture that idolizes it, but instead blame the rest of us who don’t run around doing drive-by shootings and gang-land assassinations. And it is us they seek to disarm. And we know why – because they have plans for us that require us to be disarmed before they can be effectively carried out.

So both totalitarian wannabes, Blumenthal and Murphy, are from Connecticut, eh?  The place must be a lost cause, right?

Not if gun owners fighting on the front lines there have anything to say about it.  Many times when documenting the latest in-your-face infringements from drunk-on-power politicians, gun owners will weigh in and condemn the entire state. We’ve all seen comments generalizing and applying blame to California, New Jersey or New York.

That works against liberty. I’ve met some fine Connecticut Bill of Rights defenders, including members of our Connecticut Oath Keepers chapter, and they’re as dedicated a group of patriots as any. The ones with their backs against the wall can be the most committed activists, devoting time, treasure and effort while fighting against overwhelming odds. These people have earned our admiration and gratitude for not giving up, and for showing those of us who don’t have it as bad as they do what it means to not give up. They deserve our encouragement and support.

Those front lines are important, because it’s where the abuses are strongest that significant stands for liberty are made. Connecticut is one of the places a friend and colleague to many of us, the late Mike Vanderboegh, led by example, committing acts of civil disobedience when no other means of peaceable recourse were available. Again, quoting Stewart:

I am glad we were able to help Mike with travel expenses on several occasions, so he could speak at important events, such as his speech on the steps of the Connecticut capitol (where he committed his first of many acts of defiance to unjust, unconstitutional anti-gun edicts by oath-breaking politicians), and his speech at the Alamo. I felt it was important to do that, so that people who called themselves “Three Percenters” would know who Mike was, and would listen to his advice and counsel as the founder of that movement on how to do that mission right.

Blumenthal and Murphy are making noise, getting media recognition and appealing to the useful idiots who keep them in power. They’re not really delusional, because they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re saving face and they’re laying the groundwork to make things as disruptive as possible to discourage Trump from keeping campaign promises and to poison public perception when he does.

—–

Additional resources:

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), 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.

Comments

  1. WGP 20 December, 2016, 21:03

    Keep it clear: If the “state” has it , I have it.

    Why all the splitting of hairs on why “We the People” are deprived of the same lethal power while the ruling class has a “necessary”. Is that so hard to understand?

    I just purchased another pitch fork. I feel so much safer now.

    Reply this comment
  2. Fred 21 December, 2016, 03:48

    It looks like all seven of the America people who are clamoring and demanding action showed up for this PR event.

    Reply this comment
  3. Cal 21 December, 2016, 04:18

    Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal committed/commits a felony and Perjury at the very least for breaking his Oath. Then there is the contract that he is in office under, the US Constitution, do you think our contract laws are weak, even if one is ignoring the supreme LAW of this land?

    So many buy into that the only way they can be removed is by another member of the government and that is NOT the way the framers made the US Constitution. It is our document, our contract with them that serve. That is not the way our government was created. All military constitutionally should be Militia, under the US Constitution and their own Constitution first, taking orders from officer Militia. All law enforcement should be Militia, under the US Constitution and their own Constitution first, taking orders from officer Militia except for Sheriffs who should be using Militia as their back-up. Why?

    Since the US Constitution did NOT want our government to be armed, or using arms that could be used against the people it was set up that all Americans are required to train as the military is trained, and to be armed. Go read it. Why was law enforcement created by those in government – their stated reason for creating it? To make it easier on the people to not have to train, and to not have to serve or pay the Militia. Look how far off track they are. I wrote a very long comment on this covering the history of LEA a long while back and, hopefully, those of you who bothered to read it remember it and also researched it to verify. Military, read the US Constitution, there is to NOT be a standing military BECAUSE every single able-bodied American and those LAWFULLY allowed to be here are required by the US Constitution to train and be armed, and those that serve within the federal government are REQUIRED to arm the Militias with weapons of war – not to arm foreign nations, not to arm, foreign rebels/*terrorists, not to arm LEA’s here in our nation, NOT to sell arms to foreign nations – READ IT.

    George Washington; “The Writings of George Washington”: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton)

    Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”: “The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”

    Tench Coxe: “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.” (Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787)

    Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must 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”. (‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

    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]

    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..” (That would be the law enforcement also)

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.” (end Dr. Vieira quote)

    All this hidden carp (deliberately mis-spelled) those who serve within our government use against is to hide their crimes …

    Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

    John Adams: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” (“A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)”)

    Hamilton, Federalist 33: “But it will not follow from this doctrine [that laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land] that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies (states, counties), will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

    J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.”The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being…”

    Dr. Vieira: “Looking at the last phrase in that Amendment we note that it says “…or to the people.” It could have been worded: “…and to the people” instead of being worded: “…or to the people”. Some people in America today think that it should have been “and”. I generally refer to such people as “statists”. We will look at their view of that Amendment, below, but first let us look at the Constitutionalist’s view.
    While not being very apparent, the choice of the word “or” as the proper word for that place in the wording of the Amendment is hugely indicative of the ultimate source of sovereignty. On this earth, the truest source of sovereignty would be, of course, “We The People”.
    the individual is the source of all sovereignty, and he was granted that sovereignty by Nature or by Nature’s God. The Constitution is built around that fact, and supports that fact. In truth, as we learn by studying the writings of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., the Constitution in its entirety is designed specifically to protect that fact in the application of governance as willed and written by the People.
    The hierarchy of sovereignty in our American experience would list in proper order:
    1. The individual self; and,
    2. The State in which that self lives and to which that self extends a portion of its original sovereignty; and,
    3. The Union of the several States with its delegated and granted powers, duties and disabilities, which function, as we commonly term the infrastructure, as the “Three Branches” of federal government.

    The individual is properly placed above the respective State governments, and the State governments are properly placed above certain spheres of the General government in WDC.
    There are, as Justice Scalia noted in the majority opinion on Mack/Printz v USA (1997), areas within the States into which the General government may not properly intrude or incur, and there are areas in the General government into which the States may not intrude or incur. ” (end quote) https://thementalmilitia.net/2015/12/05/the-clue-in-the-two-letter-word/

    AS all authority that those that serve within our government was delegated to the BRANCHES and to the OFFICES WITHIN A BRANCH, the people who serve are ALLOWED to use that authority for as long as they keep doing their constitutional duties in a constitutional manner and for as long as they take and KEEP their Oath. That Oath makes them PERSONALLY responsible for their actions while serving.

    Reply this comment
    • fetoma 22 December, 2016, 16:04

      Cal, while I admire your knowledge and writings on these articles, and support them, it’s just not “real world”. If I went before a judge here in New Jersey, he would lock me up for years for having a firearm on my body. What are we to do when we are supposed to have these Constitutional rights but are denied>

      Frank

      Reply this comment
      • John L. 22 December, 2016, 21:12

        Turn yourselves, by the thousands, demand a trial by a jury of your peers, plug up the system.

        Reply this comment
      • Nick 23 December, 2016, 10:12

        Read the NJ militia statutes. I have, and I’ve applied to the state militia through the governor’s office. Although I knew nothing would come of it because even in the so-called pro-2nd community there is little desire to actually win the battle. The membership is completely ignorant on the topic, and those who run such organizations do not benefit, or at least they are not intelligent enough to realize that winning the battle opens new areas. Those areas would be in the training of militia.

        Reply this comment
      • Cal 23 December, 2016, 19:33

        No, that “real world” is the fake world that those who serve within our government assisted in creating for everyone (thanks to mainstream media/movies/etc, schools, etc).

        Here in our REAL world our US Constitution is then legitimate government, as are each state’s Constitution – NOT the people who serve within them. It is important to understand that no person who serves has any authority beyond that as the next person, because of the position occupied by a person they are ALLOWED to use that authority of the branch or office within a branch. The contract that they serve under requires that they do certain duties that are in writing in a constitutional manner, take and KEEP the Oath to remain occupying that position. All of that is in writing.

        Ex, General (federal) government; Office of the US President, Section 1: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

        No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

        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.”

        Section 2: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,(comma) and of the militia of the several states,(comma) WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES;(semicolon) he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.(caps, etc are mine)

        He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

        The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

        Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

        Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. (end quote)

        Notice that it does not say that only those serving in either the legislative or judicial branches are the only ones who may charge with those crimes listed the person serving in that position, or acting to ASSIST (not do for) the person who serves within that position. Nor does it say that those powers and authority now belongs to the person who serves in that office. What it says is for as long as the person who serves within that position does those things listed in writing as required, takes and KEEPS the Oath they are keeping the contract with the people. Remember, it is the documents that basically are our government, and to whom all who serve within our governments are REQUIRED to be Oath sworn to, not the position of office, not the person serving no matter what the position is. In OTHER nations that oath, that loyalty, that allegiance would be to a PERSON. Here in the USA hat oath, that loyalty, that allegiance goe to the US Constitution and to the persons own state Constitution.

        That is our real world, and it is in writing.

        But, those who serve within our governments have been dumbed down, bought off, black mailed, etc to work from within against our nation, AGAINST the American people . The mass media has also been the same, and working AGAINST our nation, AGAINST the American people to whom the sovereignty of this nation belongs. Ditto for the banking.

        Add to that the propaganda, dumbing down mis education of our people, subliminals, etc being used against the American people; then add in the illegals brought in, and what is ongoing in our real world is treason on a massive scale.

        What is the answer? The Militia. If there are traitors in office who refuse to do their duty to the Militia, then the American people must do it themselves. But it still MUST meet our governments requirements (US Constitution). The Militia must be trained as the military is trained, so that means that those who have been trained in the Military can train those who have not – THAT is what made veterans such a threat to the traitors and domestic enemies who serve within our governments.

        Since the Militia are held pretty much entirely to the US Constitution and to their state Constitution they are REQUIRED to know them and understand them. They can take orders from officers in the Militia trained properly as required; and those officers take orders from the person serving as a US President when two conditions are met – they are constitutional orders, and the Militia being given those orders are called into federal service by the congress critters when they are lawful, and for the purposes listed within the US Constitution which are to

        — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
        — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
        — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

        By that requirement in writing by the US Constitution, those who serve within our governments are NOT allowed to use any other group, person, contract, etc for those purposes. The only excuse those that serve within our governments have at this time is that there is not enough constitutionally trained Militia fior them to use them for those purposes.

        So I would say that the first necessary thing to be done is to get LE’s and military to understand their Oath, who that Oath is to, and what is required of them. Then for those people serving to “just say “NO”, until we get our government straightened out, charges made, prosecutions carried out, replacements put into place.

        It will not be easy, but it IS necessary. Not one person follows any orders UNLESS that order is 100% constitutional from any superior – state or general (federal). The OATH requires that they support and defend the US Constitution above and before any order of superior, any duty of the position they occupy. This is also required of any and ALL who serves within our governments – state or general (federal). It they have not take the Oath, but they are a government “employee”, they must take and keep the Oath if they wish to have lawful authority of the position they occupy – state and general (federal) or they have no legitimate authority.

        That is what it takes here in America. It is in writing for all to know.

        God Bless and Stay Safe Everyone!

        Cal
        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.”

        Reply this comment
    • Nick 23 December, 2016, 10:12

      The law is what is written not what is interpreted by some black robbed administrator, or elected representative. “When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government *** we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
      You would be hard pressed to find anyone in this nation that actually wants to abide by the strict meaning of popular sovereignty. Most of the population has been bred away from the facts of popular sovereignty, and those who should know better have the ridiculous notion that they need to dance around the rule of law because the general population is ignorant. Of course there are those who would not give up the life they’ve attained by failing to educate their membership as to the true and accurate intention of the 2nd. I speak of organizations such as the NRA where I’ve found that the membership hasn’t a clue as to what the 2nd entails. The vast majority want nothing at all to do with Militia, its point of law, and the responsibility placed upon the People to protect and defend.
      How many times have you heard any head, board member, or other supposed expert in this field say outright that there are 27 words in the 2nd? How many times have you heard anyone refute the notion that the National Guard can be militia? How many times have you heard of anyone applying to their state for a position in the Constitutional Militia? With the exception of Dr. Vieira who has written to the NRA on the topic, I’m not sure if you’ll find anyone else who has actually tried to muster the troops to revitalize the Constitutional Militia. Perhaps there is work being done in secret. I love that aspect of this whole mess, “We are working on it behind the scenes”. I find that to be offensive to the rest of the community who should be totally engaged. I believe that a million or so letters to congress, legislators, and the court stating that you’ve fictitiously, and therefore unlawfully removed power from the People, and by doing so committed felonies. Acknowledge the deceit and revitalize the Constitutional Militia now.
      I’ve always believed that strength in numbers is the proper course, while working with “select people” is the worst possible course.
      Muster the troops for the revitalization and we might just get something done.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 24 December, 2016, 06:11

        “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

        True, except that the actions of sovereignty were delegated over certain things that the people are bound by as much as those who serve are bound by the contract (US Constitution/state Constitution) in order to have any lawful authority in those areas – all in writing. It is an agreement on both sides. Like any contract, when one fails to follow it, (if it is a group contract) that person is “out”; but because certain principles are written into the agreement, those of both sides get a jury trial when that agreement is broken.

        President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

        Can we lawfully remove anyone who serves within our government for not keeping the contract/Oath? I believe we can. That required Oath makes the Oath taker, or person serving in a position that requires an Oath but did not take it, personally responsible. That is why in the past those that served within our governments – judges included – were held responsible for their actions.

        But when we hold them responsible (and by our lawful law, not maritime law), they get a jury trial. But they can be removed by the people, and it matters NOT what position they serve within.

        That is why Dr. Vieira says it so well here when summarizing the actions of those who serve within our governments: Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

        The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

        So can that mass of stupid led sheep hold D. Trump responsible at this time to remove him? No, he has not served yet. Can we hold Obama, Clinton’s, Bush’s, Carter, etc responsible, of course we can. Our contract is not what those in government say it is, it is what the people and the government agree that it is, and it is in writing.

        Ex: Social Security – there was an agreement when it was started between what the government was going to do with that money, how it was to be held, what all information regarding that money was to be handled. Then later, those in government (same people or not) CHANGED the agreed upon contract by their will, not asking the people if the change was okay with them. That contract was broken by those serving within our government. Every single person serving within our government is personally responsible for that action, though they may not have been the actual person who committed that action – the Oath makes it so. So what does that mean? Misappropriation of funds means that the person who committed the misappropriation are personally responsible for their own actions, and their private possessions can be taken to replace stolen money and distributed to those who contributed. It does NOT mean that those who serve within our government can make arbitrary decisions beyond the scope delegated to the position they serve within, because once they break the contract they are responsible for that/those actions. It also means that those who came into office and did NOT correct the unconstitutional action as is required of them, therefore the y also become complicit and are personally responsible.

        Lets go to the “wars” that have been ongoing. The US Constitution, the contract between the people who serve within government and the people, says exactly in writing when the American people can be sent to war. It is NOT by lies, we can now as a group take everything the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Carter’s (those that served) own and distribute it to the people. They misappropriated those funds. Social Security, misappropriation. NSA, DHS, TSA, foreign aid, corporate welfare, Free Trade, Patriot Act, etc, etc the creation of, and the support of those things are misappropriation. The people were not asked if they can deviate from what is in writing, the contract between two parties.

        Did we authorize the Federal Reserve? No. Matter of fact it is in writing how the creation of money here in the USA will be handled. Everyone involved that is still living that serves/served within our government are personally responsible for that action if they did not create it, they did not rescind it as is required of them or there would be NO Federal Reserve. Those that owe loyalty to the US (does not need to be a citizen) and was involved are personally responsible. Corporations that have gone against the requirement to do no harm, those that own/run/etc them are personally responsible.

        Personal responsibility is the key part of being free and independent – and that is at all levels. So if an oil spill happened by those who involved in corporation are responsible for the complete clean-up. Complete clean-up. Vaccines – there is no one who serves within our government that has any lawful authority to give a corporation void responsibility from their actions – so they cannot do it.

        But this all requires that the PEOPLE know the US Constitution and their state Constitution. How many noticed that there were a LOT of constitutional amendments on the last ballots? That makes those items an agreement between the people of that state and those that serve within our government – as long as NO FRAUD was involved.

        “I’m not sure if you’ll find anyone else who has actually tried to muster the troops to revitalize the Constitutional Militia.”

        Many are teaching about the Militia, what it is, what is required of those that serve, who is required to train, etc; but it is true Dr. Vieira led/leads the way. But why do you think all these “bad” things are happening in government in concern with veterans? Veterans are the biggest danger to those who serve within our government and refuse to do their duty as written. Why? Because they can train the people – all the people – to be as is constitutionally required. That means that there can be a Militia that those who serve within our governments MUST use; and by that requirement lose those on-our-soil troops they are now using against the people. That the Militia would have the full backing of the US Constitution as it is in writing and is a requirement; part of the contract.

        “Muster the troops for the revitalization and we might just get something done.”

        Then you are talking about a military takeover of our nation. Do you really believe the top military people can be trusted with that power and troops that will obey them? NO, they cannot, and they have proven it. They are Oath bound to the US Constitution, and it is their biggest problem. Why? Because we cannot lawfully have a standing “military”, only a standing Militia trained as the military is trained so that the arms are in the hands of the people, NOT in the hands of those that serve within our government.

        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.”

        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.”

        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.”

        James Madison said that war “has the tendency to render the head too large for the body.” and that, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”

        Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

        George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

        It is important to realize that every person who has read and worked to understand the US Constitution may take up arms on its behalf. That those that serve within the unlawful governmental enforcement who follows any unconstitutional order from anyone who serves within our government are personally responsible for their own actions; be they military or LE. They are REQUIRED in writing to be Oath bound to the US Constitution, not to a person or office. Why that document? It does not change as people do, at the whim of the moment. That is why if they keep their Oath and refuse to do anything but stay to defend our nation from foreign or domestic attack until we get those traitors and domestic enemies replaced their actions are lawful. That is why if they read the document that they are bound to follow they can do no actions to hurt our nation further, but much to fix it. It they instead become the required Militia, that is better for our nation then the other choices. But just saying “NO” to unlawful orders as is already required of you (generic “you”) is most important.

        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]

        Reply this comment
  4. sealaw 21 December, 2016, 07:14

    Elected officials at ALL levels must be constantly reminded of the source of their power:

    “Deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED…”

    Reply this comment
  5. chester arthur 21 December, 2016, 09:41

    I guess Blumenthal learned what the people ‘need’,as determined by the state,during his time in Vietnam.Oh,wait,that was a lie,too.

    Reply this comment
    • DMarkWard 23 December, 2016, 09:51

      Bluementhal reminds me of a mealy mouthed professor or salesman that does not know his subject or product. I wonder if he has ever uttered or promoted the word Liberty, you know, the product he is supposed to profess or sell as an Oath taking Congress critter.

      Reply this comment
  6. NY Oathkeeper 21 December, 2016, 13:44

    Anyone recognize the oathbreakers in that photo.We should be taking names, time and dates for their involvement in these oathbreaking activities.They will be held accountable at a later date.

    Reply this comment
  7. Eaglesnester 21 December, 2016, 13:52

    I suggest that legislation be past federally, that puts sever sanctions on any elected politicians that violates their oath of office to defend and uphold the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Any politician anywhere at any time who violates any part of the constitution with enacted legislation should be arrested and prosecuted and the sanctions should be severe enough to dissuade them from trying to enact laws contrary to the bill of rights and the constitution. This will never happen as congress and the Sennett are full of oath breakers.

    Reply this comment
  8. Jake 21 December, 2016, 20:03

    Gun control doesn’t work. It makes the situation worse. All it does is take away a citizens right to defend themselves. The UK has huge problems with knife crime. They banned guns and the criminals simply commit homicide with a knife instead. In USA, people have such easy access to guns and there are so many in circulation, there is no way to round the guns up. Even if a gun ban was enacted, how would the government even confiscate hundred of millions of guns? You can even buy guns online nowadays. It’s so easy. I linked below one website I came across just to highlight the fact that there are too many guns in circulation, due to the easy availability, that a gun ban wouldn’t do anything: https://www.gunsforsalereviews.com/

    Reply this comment
  9. KRW801 22 December, 2016, 15:48

    Blumenthal has just demenstrated that he is a CLASS A retard. He is absolutely CLUELESS and should be voted out of office ASAP!!!!

    Reply this comment
    • Michael J 25 December, 2016, 10:10

      He won’t be voted out because this is what happens when most of the population has forgotten or never knew what America is all about. Donald Duck or Bugs Bunny could run for Office and if he had a (D) by his name he would get elected. Hillary Clinton won this State in the 2016 election what does that tell you?

      Reply this comment
  10. Badger 22 December, 2016, 15:54

    Gun control laws are in effect occupational safety laws — OSHA for burglars, muggers, car jackers and others. – Thomas Sowell

    Reply this comment
  11. CinemaNoir 22 December, 2016, 16:14

    Folks, this blue-state senator has just announced his candidacy for POTUS in 2020, on the liberal/progressive/statis/communist/Democrat party…..

    Reply this comment
  12. dio 22 December, 2016, 16:40

    Quite the photo-op ain’t it. Bet he was chi**ing his pants when he touched? that weapon (it could have went off on its own don’t ya know). As to the looks of his recent-looking police academy officers, I’m not impressed. Wonder where their superiors were on that fine looking day??? Wanting no part of it I’d guess. Smart men, send the rookies.

    Reply this comment
  13. Hotrod 22 December, 2016, 18:41

    Yeah. Criminals always go through LEGAL means of getting a gun including buying them from a shop which requires a background check and so on. This just shows how disconnected with real life that these anti-gun government people really are. They have no problem restricting gun purchases for regular people but don’t seem to grasp the fact that REAL CRIMINALS i.e. convicted felons never buy their guns through a gun shop and especially not for a crime. DUH. No faster way to get caught.

    Reply this comment
  14. CaptainJim 22 December, 2016, 20:02

    Here’s what I wrote to Senator Blumenthal…

    Dear Senator Blumenthal,

    We do not have a Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is natural, fundamental, unalienable, God-given, Constitutionally-protected right… that No One can take away. Not even you.

    Your attempts to disarm law-abiding citizens is disgusting and shocking beyond belief for an otherwise intelligent human being like you.

    Please get off this bandwagon. It is over, the people have spoken, we do not want to give up our guns. Not ever!

    You are wasting your time and doing a great disservice to our once great nation.

    As a servant of the people you have an obligation to support the US Constitution, not try to subvert it.

    Please do the job you were elected to do.

    Respectfully, Captain Jim Green, Former US Navy and Retired United Airlines

    Reply this comment
  15. jaybird 23 December, 2016, 01:55

    I come from Ct. and Blumenthal is the same idiot who as Attorney General went around speaking to veteran groups about how hard it was coming back from there with the public. Only problem is he was never in Nam. A poser. Oh he served in the Maine reserves, never left the states, but he sure talked a good game. And yet he still got elected. Goes to show you how dark blue this state is. The thing that really gets you, is that our of the 13 original colonies that fought and died for independence, there are only 3 left that don’t have a war on guns and citizens owning them. Pretty freakin sad. And Murphy is another in the long list of jerkoffs who have been elected to congress and the senate from this state. I gave up on blue a long time ago, and moved to a red state and couldn’t be happier. Those fighting in Ct to get it to change are fighting a losing battle. As long as you keep electing governors like the present one, Malloy, you will never get anywhere.

    Reply this comment
  16. Rick 23 December, 2016, 08:11

    Let the libs/communists/progressives pass any and all laws they want. We, as the American people, always have the final say. I, as one of those people, will never recognize or obey any laws they pass that are not 100% supported by our Constitution. Oh, and by the way, I will use my firearms for the reason the Constitution recognizes our God-given right to have them in the first place. Politicians beware.

    Reply this comment
  17. DMarkWard 23 December, 2016, 09:46

    So what does he propose to do, i.e. make it illegal for terrorists to purchase weapons? I guess the enforcement will be done after the chalk marks are drawn around the terrorists victims, if the terrorist is still alive. I am reminded of the end of practically every episode of the 1960’s FBI series (the one starring Efrem Zimbalist) where the charges against each perp are read. Now, I could see a reading of charges ending with: Terrorist purchase of a firearm, assuming the perp is still alive.

    Reply this comment
  18. JH 24 December, 2016, 07:27

    I thought the RI delegation was bad. Love these guys who take a solemn oath to uphold the constitution the proceed to use it to wipe their ass. Talk about deplorable.

    Reply this comment
  19. Mike November 24 December, 2016, 13:15

    CT OK member here.
    There is no nationally elected official from CT who cares about the Constitution or the oath that they took. Therefore, to them, any new law is fodder for compromise or worse.
    These oath breakers, and many at the state government level, have failed to accomplish their very first responsibility of their positions. “to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
    Yet there are those of us who have chosen to draw our line here. We have chosen not to move. We have chosen to fight what we know is wrong and harmful to a sound society. To push back legally and lawfully to restore our Constitutional republic.
    RTI and CPT we must and we do. We also invested in being involved in the election process as all good Americans should. Beginning with involvement or support at town councils, to door knocking, to being delegates, Our members have helped other good Americans to choose who gets on the ballot in this state. And in 6 years or so the state Senate is now evenly split between the parties. yaledailynews.com/blog/…/connecticut-state-senate-split-for-the-first-time-since-1893/ (this link has been removed.)
    And the House of Reps. divide is now a close 79-72 split. It is slow, but it is having its effect. As far as CT voting for national level positions, the % of people voting against the Blumenthal’s of CT has increased. Challengers were soundly defeated up to 6 years ago. 2 years ago, shots went across the bow of the incumbents with first time opponents garnering 30-33% of the votes. That percentage went up in this election cycle. This is a larger longer skirmish that is being waged here.
    CTOK members and other Constitutional groups have “set brush fires of freedom in the minds of men”. I will say that CTOK is having an effect by being seen and heard in public. It gives others permission to do the same. We have brothers and sisters who are relentless in correcting any politician who calls the US a democracy.
    We cannot ignore that common sense is prevailing over the ridiculous rhetoric of those like Blumenthal. Self inflicted wounds on the enemies of freedom are always appreciated.

    CTOK members are (R),(D),(I),(L) but being American is the higher priority.

    Reply this comment
  20. Barbara 24 December, 2016, 20:15

    BLUMENTHAL GET A BRAIN . STOP TRYING TO DISARM US. AFTER ALL THAT BLASTED MUSLIM THAT HE HAS BROUGHT INTO OUR COUNTRY. GET YOURSELF INFORMED ISIS IS IN EVERY DAMN STATE. AND YOU WANT TO DISARM US. LETS GET REAL HERE. BY THE TIME WE CALL 911 THEY MORE THEN LIKELY HAVE KILLED US. SO SCREW THAT IDEA.!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  21. pecosred 24 December, 2016, 22:47

    This is the same idiot that lied about serving in Viet Nam.

    Reply this comment
  22. douseeyet 25 December, 2016, 08:30

    Yes, do the unexpected. Invite Blumenthal to the W.H. and then tell him to tone down the rhetoric and that no major anti-gun bills will pass your desk…….ever. Then send him on his way.

    Reply this comment
  23. James Stamulis 25 December, 2016, 08:59

    The left is obviously trying to copy what Europe has already done. Every time a terrorist attacks the innocent the left comes out holier than thou and demands guns be taken from the victims in the name of protecting them. Only the idiotic believe them and unfortunately there is no shortage of idiots. In America there is no excuse for any politician to steal our 2nd amendment for they are sworn to protect that right.

    Reply this comment
  24. Michael J 25 December, 2016, 09:51

    I can just picture Blumenthal in a NAZI SS Uniform except NAZI’s fought the likes of these elected scum bags (Blumenthal and Murphy) who are actually more Bolshevik. Connecticut is the Un-Constitutional State. Sanctuary Cities. UN Sister Cities, I am sure UN Strong Cities by now. There is a push by groups to make the entire state a “Sanctuary State”. The position of County Sheriff was removed from the State Constitution in 2000. Sheriffs are no longer elected by the people but are 1099 Employees of the State serving evictions, foreclosure notices, and lawsuit papers or the occasional prisoner escapee hunt. The gun laws were very tough, but after Sandy Hook (Which many believe was a FEMA Drill presented as real) they now have gun registration for long guns, license to buy ammo (unless you have a Pistol Permit) 10 round limit on magazines, and you must declare what magazines you have to the state that are over 10 rounds even though you can’t use them. The State defines what an “assault weapon” is and of course they are no longer legal, unless you owned one already. However it can only be sold or transferred to Military or Law Enforcement, thus they actually enacted a soft confiscation. All precious metals sales are controlled and closely monitored electronically. The taxes are very high and always going higher. Connecticut is clearly a fascist Communist State with a growing citizen base that has no understanding of freedom or what tyranny is. My great grand parents came to the USA/CT for a better life. I am now a refugee from this state as I refuse to live under tyranny of control freaks. I moved 06/2013 to escape the tyranny and horrible quality of life and it is obviously only getting worse. This is the model that the NWO Globalists seek to impose on all of the United States. CT is an example of creeping incrementalism. Needless to say I despise my former home state with every fiber of my being. They are a disgrace.

    Reply this comment
    • Disarmed Canadian 26 December, 2016, 04:23

      Sorry to see you fled your home state Michael J. When or if you get the chance those traitors to your 2nd amendment should be arrested and charged then have their U.S. citizenship revoked because they would rather live in a communist place like 1920s Russia where they confiscated everything including food.

      Reply this comment
  25. Piper Michael 26 December, 2016, 07:26

    It is all more insidious than I first believed, but then, I now recognize that ‘leftism’ is nothing but The Hive Mind, and they are as One Mind. This has infected the VA on many levels. I never believed that they would ‘label’ me as ‘mental’, but I never used them since the days of Vietnam, simply because I didn’t want any ‘gumint doctors’ working on me. I should have stayed with that, but life, has a way of dealing unrecoverable blows, so I was forced to apply for VA ‘Health care’.
    The first doctor I saw, could care less about what was physically wrong with me, ignoring 30 years of medical records I had brought with me, and immediately, started asking questions about my life, and without having a chance to fully explain that yes, I was going through a bad financial patch right now… but… (I was trying to find a new purpose in life, since, my old purpose, being a robotics engineer, had been outsourced, and I was now too old, and ‘over qualified’ for anything… so, employers would rather bring in h1b’s, than pay me what I was worth. (Even a willingness to take pay cuts, doesn’t work, since you are ‘over qualified’.)
    Long story short, after 5 minutes, and no review of my medical history, this asshole that calls himself a doctor, pronounced me ‘chronically depressed’ and referred me to their psychologist for an ‘evaluation’. All my other problems, were ‘in my head’, despite having a disability for a hand grenade accident, and broken pelvis, and… other related issues. None of that matter to him. All he would do for me was ‘two aspirins and call me in three months’.
    Since that time, all they would prescribe is drugs for mental patients, I objected, and asked to see the psychologists evaluation, since, I thought I convinced her I was merely going through a temporary period. Nope, sorry, that’s ‘privileged information’. WTF? Its my info? No dice, their agenda was complete. And is was, an AGENDA, to label vets as mentally incompetent to get a concealed carry permit. So F**k them, this is an open carry state….
    I did, eventually, find blacksmithing, a sort of engineering, that provides much joy. But, despite that, they say I’m mentally damaged, we now find now, through a congressional report, that these leftist assholes(sorry, but a spade is a spade), STOLE, $2.6 BILLION from the VA budget, so that their Dear Leader could fund his Syrian Refugee Program.
    I know I’m not alone… where is the outrage? Because it is only one, of many, and we are all burned out on outrage.
    Go Trump.

    Reply this comment
    • Charlie BROWN 30 December, 2016, 14:16

      I am outraged Piper Michael and I don’t even know you!!! Almost unbelievable what these criminal rascals get away with.I recon it is partly our fault for not getting physically pushy enough (if ya know what I mean) but they know and we know what the consequences for that would be and I guess there are just not enough folks that are POed enough yet or the nation is too split. Any way best wishes to ya Michael.
      cb

      Reply this comment
  26. Awasis 26 December, 2016, 16:41

    If we really were “clamoring” to have guns taken away from us, don’t you think we would… I don’t know…. stop buying them? No instead what we HAVE seen is soaring gun sales. So that says to me that the majority DO, and a small faction of militant politicians are the only ones “clamoring.”.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*