This gang stalking phenomena first came to my attention a couple of years ago through blogs like Vox Day’s and Anonymous Conservative.  There seems to be a concerted effort by someone, be it a group or organization or cult to track, harass, and intimidate people.  Though I have never experienced the overt example of this and there is no way of knowing if it is being done covertly, there are MANY examples of this sort of thing.  Mostly masked as a sort of inept “cyber bullying”, one example in the video below:

Why, first of all, would people have the time to mess with this, and why would they care?  Do you, personally have the wherewithal, the money, the time and the sheer dogged obsessive determination to even want to drive 50 miles or more out of your way to harass a couple of people who basically haven’t harmed a soul?

As Anonymous Conservative said on his blog about this situation:

It is interesting the machine seems to be targeting channels whose message is, “Go out to the woods, get rid of your debt, and be self-sufficient with a small family, uncontaminated by modern day bullshit.” It is almost like the machine needs people trapped, and suffering, and exposed to all this shit, and caring about all this bullshit. If everyone with brains left the cities, and formed little utopias like that, and left Globohomo to stew with its trannies, and migrant criminals, and rapists, and debts, and groomers, Globohomo would somehow suffer. Maybe that is what we should all be doing.

As a person who has voluntarily removed himself as far from “city life” and being “off the grid” as much as possible for my situation, this hits particularly close to home.

I hope that you all can take notice of this sort of thing, keep your eyes out.  Because if this thing really does exist as extensive as I think it is, it is a definite problem for all of us.

I may be paranoid, but paranoia isn’t unreasonable if people are out to get you.

Just read the words.

When our founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they were written in plain, easily understood, English of the time.  Meanings have changed a little, but not that much. Simple language, so there was no mistake or misunderstandings.
Natural law is the basic philosophy that our founders chose to base our country on.  That and basic common sense English Common law.

In my earlier essay on the First amendment, the basic rights discussed were Life, Liberty and Property.  You, because you are a living human being, have these rights because they were given to you by a higher power, not because “government”, and this was self evident to the founders, and to most observant Christians.  Since those rights are given to you by “nature and nature’s God”, no one, person or earthly authority, has the right to take them from you.  You in turn have the right to protect your Life, Liberty and Property from anyone who would take them from you, even the government.  The Government has been given the power, by consent of the governed, to use violence to take those rights under certain circumstances (for example: criminal activity against other’s rights like robbery, rape or murder).  It was recognized that the people needed a way to protect those rights from anyone including the government, so they could not be taken by a whim of tyranny.

The Second Amendment reads:
“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.”

Taking the words in the context and meaning of the founders is actually very simple.  They have left literally thousands of pages of debate and opinion that shows their intent to arm individual American citizens for both self protection and national defense.  There is no evidence, anywhere, to suggest otherwise, except an authoritarian view that the “hoi poloi” common people shouldn’t have arms, and need to be ruled by their betters.
The language is very simple, and easy to understand:
“A well regulated militia” means a militia that is well functioning, trained and well equipped as a modern, military force.  Made up of citizen soldiers, part timers, it was to be a “reserve force” for a very small standing army.  US Law Defines “Militia” very specifically:

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A – General Military Law
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

“Being necessary to the security of a free state” the militia, as described, is necessary to security to fight enemies of a free state both criminal and foreign. The militia itself, by definition includes Sheriff, and anyone he would deputize, and would also include the functions of the modern police force.  Now a “free state” in the context of the constitution, and natural law means a “nation state” that exists in “liberty” and protects the liberty of it’s individual people.  This would constitute a “state monopoly” on the use of violent force if only the militia was armed, but this:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” expressly negates that monopoly.  Rights are for individuals, there are no “group rights” or “collective rights”.  The “people” are the individual citizens.  “Keep and bear” means literally “own and carry”, not “rent from the government and keep locked in a safe”.  “Arms” in this context means the same arms that a modern military force, including a police force, would need in order to preform that function.
*** So specifically military arms.***
Because a “militia” serves at the pleasure and does the bidding of the government, it is a temptation to use it against the people.  Governments are made of fallible human beings, often power hungry and greedy, and often will use it’s military and police against the liberty and property of it’s citizens.  Protecting the people’s right to the same arms the military uses counters that, and as an added benefit arms the unorganized militia.
“Shall not be infringed.” is very specific language and does not leave the leeway that modern judiciary seems to want to regulate or license or deny the people access to military arms.  Because an infringement is any of those, or any attempt to control or deny such access by anyone.  Because it doesn’t say “congress” shall not infringe, or “state legislature” shall not infringe, or the “executive branch” shall not infringe, or “the judiciary” shall not infringe.

***All gun control is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.***

To paraphrase the meaning into modern English:
Because it is necessary to have a uniformed force to secure the liberty of a free nation, it is also necessary to make sure they don’t have a monopoly on the tools of violence needed to do that. Therefore, the natural right of the people to protect their life, liberty and property by force of arms if necessary must be insured by including an amendment to the constitution ensuring it, and protecting it from the government regulating it in ANY WAY.

In a nutshell, THAT is what the Second Amendment means.

Free speech and redressing grievances without getting beat up???

In part one, we examined the concept of “Natural Law”, and the three basic rights that are given to men by nature and nature’s God: life, liberty and property.  When people think of the First Amendment, the liberty of being able to speak their minds and voice their opinions is the first thing that comes to mind.  That “freedom of speech” is specifically protected because there is often disagreement and even offense taken over facts and opinions people voice.  Particularly when the facts or opinions voiced go against the “main stream” popular opinion, or against the government itself, or against some “taboo” of a group, religion, political party or popular person.
The essence of “freedom of speech” is not to protect speech that “everyone” agrees with, or that agrees with the government, but to protect speech that is unpopular, disagreeable, offensive and even subversive.  Because speech that is agreeable and inoffensive doesn’t need to be protected.

To be clear, you have the right to disagree, argue with, voice dissenting opinions, even to the point of “offense”, to anyone whether they be your neighbor, politicians, pundits, religious figures or popular “personalities”.  The only limitation is deliberate “slander” or “libel”, meant to destroy the reputation of people or groups and consisting of deliberate lies.  Even that isn’t a true limitation, because it has to be proven in a court of law.

“Offensive speech” is protected speech.  There is no right to be free from offense, to be free from being “offended”. Offense is something taken, not given.  Even if someone  deliberately tries to offend you with what they say, you can choose not to take offense.  The phrase “offensive speech” is a straw man, a logical fallacy used to prevent speech about, and actual debate of controversial topics.  It is similar to another long touted straw man: “shouting fire in a crowed theater”.  Logically, if the theater is on fire that is the most rational response along with vacating the theater as fast as possible.  If you are mistaken, you at least erred on the side of caution and not getting burned.  If you are deliberately trying to cause havoc, social and legal consequences will be paid.  There is no need to make such speech illegal, as any such law would not prevent an actual fire, but may prevent the rational response.  The same with calling any type of speech “offensive”.  If you stated a simple fact “the sky is blue”, a person with the opinion that the sky is green could take offense at that.  A simple debate, color charts, and science would prove the truth of that fact, so the defense of the indefensible is to take offense and demand you be silenced.

“Offensive speech” is a rationalization for violence and censorship.  Where voicing a political, social, or religious opinion, because of it’s content, is deemed offensive (by whoever, usually some “authority”) it is often called “hate speech”. This is done whether or not the content of the speech actually advocates hating any  person, group or religion.  Even voicing simple facts backed up by evidence, science and rational thought can be considered “hate speech” by people who wish to deny those  facts.  “Hate” in this context is considered an aggressive act, provoking a defensive response, often invoking aggressive policing, even irrational aggression against the speaker.  Speech, no matter what it’s contents, cannot cause harm, injure physically, or destroy anything.  Someone saying “I hate you” doesn’t hurt you, you can disagree, debate, or even close your ears and ignore it.  Advocating violence, hatred of people or groups can always be countered by advocating peace and love.  Silencing speech of any kind is only effective in protecting ideas that have no rational defense, and maintaining control over the people that accept them.
To maintain a lie, it is necessary to conceal the truth.

“the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  From the beginning of our nation, real offenses against freedom have existed, often perpetrated and protected by our own government.  Our government was formed by “We the people” in response to the English government’s suppression of the right to petition against it.  Often the response was violent suppression using the military and repressive law enforcement.  One such act March 5th, 1770 was the “Boston Massacre”.  Speech against the government is often considered “seditious” by the government and it’s minions, which is why it is protected by law (The Constitution IS law).  Because private entities often take the place of government in our lives (such as corporations, unions etc.) that right also pertains to them as well.
The right of the people to peaceably assemble is not limited to petitioning the government, but is in addition to.  That is why the “and” is in the text.  There is no such thing as an “unlawful assembly” as long as it is peaceable.

Any authority declaring a peaceful group of protestors an “unlawful assembly” is going against the text and spirit of the first amendment.

<Next, The meaning of the Second Amendment>

The Bill of Rights were written by wise men who wanted their meanings to be precise, and not subject to “interpretation” by the “lawyers” among us.  Because this is the case, simple dictionary definitions (from 1792) can be used to find what rights our founders were trying to protect.

It is important to realize that these 10 amendments to the Constitution are US law that supersedes all other law, regulation, custom and interpretation of law, Federal or State that have been passed in the last 225 years.  Also note that or constitution is based on the concept of “Natural Law“, which holds that any rights that mankind has are not given to them by governments, kings, or laws written by men. They are inherent, by their being, and given to them by “nature, and nature’s God”.  So any rights written in the constitutional amendments are not given by the government but protected FROM government BY the amendment.

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

“Congress shall make no law” is very clear.  The legislative body of the federal government is not to make, create, propose or debate any law in regards to the subject of the amendment.  All bodies of government other than congress are also subject to this restriction in that all other executive, judicial, and legislative bodies in this country are as bound to the constitution as the Federal Congress which is otherwise supreme in it’s ability to make law.
Any law that is made in opposition to this amendment is therefore superseded by this amendment and is no law. Continue reading Meaning of the First Amendment ~ part one →