High-Life versus Low-Life. Donkey and elephant facing off.


You’re a Humanimal!

Face it, you’re a humanimal – part human and part animal.

Your animal nature is to take by force – to violently wrest what you need from the environment. It is known as the “ego,” that part of us which is selfish, concerned with its own narrow personal interests.

But there’s hope for you. Like the rest of us you are growing out of your “lower” animal nature and into your “higher” human nature, which is … to give. The highest of our species live entirely for others.

Your lower nature isn’t “bad.” It’s just a stage in your evolution, your growth, your life. Is the bud stage of a flower (before it blossoms) bad? Of course not.

So, the term low-life is meant to describe a low level of consciousness. It is not meant to be derogatory.

Well, maybe a little. Hey, I have to have some fun with this or I’ll blow a gasket.
If it makes you feel any better, some of my best friends are low-lifes. My wife calls me a low-life every now and then.

Hell, you may be a low-life for all I know. Let’s find out. Are you ready to face the truth about who you really are? Are you a high-life or a political (ugh!) animal?

Chapter One

“Fundamental Reality”

What the hell is going on?

That’s not too much to ask is it?

Who am I, what is life, and what does it all mean?

In other words, what the hell is going on?

Physics has been asking the same question for a very long time. According to Albert Einstein, the purpose of physics is to discover the “fundamental reality.”

Max Planck, winner of the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics, concluded that “There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter… I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness.”


Max drops two bombshells here. The first has to do with matter. Physics is the study of matter (the physical world), and Max says that matter doesn’t exist. Does that strike you as odd?

Actually, he says there is no matter “as such” or “as you know it.” Max means that all of the physical objects in the universe (planets, meteors, human bodies, etc.) which we believe are completely separate from one another aren’t separate at all. They are one substance. They are part of a continuum of existence, and they all have the same fundamental reality.

That brings us to Max Planck’s second bombshell. He says that consciousness is the fundamental reality.

Erwin took it a step further. Erwin Schrodinger, recipient of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics, said that our own conscious minds are individual expressions of this universal mind/consciousness. He maintained that “[m]ultiplicity is only apparent. The total number of minds in the universe is one.” The great British physicist James Jeans maintained that “each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.”

[What does all this have to do with politics, Monte? Easy now. We’ll get there. And why all this physics stuff, Monte? Because physicists are among the most rational, hard-headed, clear thinking experts on reality. Would you prefer Chuck Schumer? How about Phil Swift? How about Whoopi?].

Einstein’s unified field theory is a crude description of this universal mind concept. Deep within us is a “unified field” of intelligence, out of which the universe is continuously being born. This where life is most alive, vital and powerful. More importantly, it’s possible to contact this source and thereby increase one’s own level of aliveness.

I do it with meditation. Are you ready for this?

As of October 1, 2018, I have meditated twice a day for 49 years (about 1½ hours per day). That’s 35,770 meditations lasting a total of 26,827 hours. That’s over 1117 days in meditation -- almost exactly three years. That’s a lot of time with your eyes closed, sportsfans!

No matter how rough things get in my life, when I come out of meditation, I’m refreshed, happier, clearer and more energetic. I’m more alive. In fact, that’s what “source” is to me – pure aliveness.

The benefits of meditation are cumulative – like the old-fashioned way of dying cloth. Dip the cloth into the dye and let the sun make some of it fast. Keep repeating until the color of the cloth is the color of the dye.

Use whatever process works for you. The goal is to gradually increase your aliveness/awareness until it is as rich and powerful and loving as the fundamental reality – pure consciousness.

Be patient, though. It’s a process, a journey. It doesn’t happen all at once.

Consciousness Unfolds in Stages

There are stages in the growth of all life forms. A plant develops from a seed to a sprout to a bud, but a bud is not all there is to becoming a rose. One fine day it will blossom into a flower.

Likewise, growth of human consciousness occurs in stages. Earlier stages are dominated by the senses and emotions.

An important break point in our evolution is the emergence of reason. While obviously not totally absent at prior levels of consciousness, the intellect (at some point) begins to develop rapidly enough so that it can be characterized as a discrete stage.

It is not surprising that America (and western civilization generally) values education, computers, the professions, and science and technology. Less evolved societies are less capable of conducting themselves in a rational manner. They simply don’t have enough miles on their evolutionary odometer yet.

However, while reason deserves the praise it gets as an advanced stage in the sequential unfolding of human consciousness, there is a higher stage. Again, a bud is not all there is to being a rose.

Beyond the intellect lies the realm of subjectivity, which is characterized by the opening of the heart, the rapid growth of love and an ability to discern the essence of life intuitively (commonly referred to as “wisdom”).

“Love takes up where knowledge leaves off.”
– St. Augustine

According to Heisenberg, “[i]t will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.” Einstein maintained that “the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why…. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

Political Consciousness Also Unfolds in Stages
While it’s delightful to admire the high end of human consciousness, our subject is politics, so we must lower our gaze. Let us now examine how the unfolding of consciousness affects political behavior. Let me begin by telling you a little story.

Joseph Merrick, the “Elephant Man,” once said “I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!” Sorry, Joseph. You’re both. Animal and human. So are the rest of us. Hold up a mirror. Look at those fangs and claws. Look at that hair. Look at that brain!

The core of the human brain (the brain stem) is called the “old brain” or the “R-brain.” R stands for “reptilian,” because we still retain the core of the brain possessed by our reptilian ancestors. Our “lizard brain” takes responsibility for our survival assessments and reactions (fight or flight). According to one psychiatrist,

“[T]he old reptile and animal brain is still anatomically and functionally present, and its atavistic activity continues to exert a pervasive animal instinct that strengthens predatory tendencies and aggression. All the instincts of the animal persist and influence or even dominate much of the behavioral and feeling states. The emotions of the animal are ever present and close to the surface. These tendencies are themselves vulnerable to training and manipulation by social programming and propaganda.”

We mate and reproduce like apes. We have the same blood types as apes, and our genetic code differs by only 2%. We are territorial, competitive and hierarchical. We kill and eat other animals. Last century we “humans” killed over 150 million of our brothers and sisters in foreign wars and domestic genocide. That’s pretty animalistic, isn’t it?

But we’re more than just animals. We’re human beings, too. We’re like the mythical Centaur, half animal (its lower body was that of a horse) and half human (it had the upper torso of a man.) In other words, we’re … humanimals.

Again, we are in the process of growing out of our “lower” animal nature into our “higher” human nature. Your lower nature isn’t “bad.” It’s just a stage in your evolution, your growth, your life. Is the bud stage of a flower (before it blossoms) bad? Of course not.

Our animal nature is the, uh … rear end of the Centaur. It is known as the “ego,” that part of us which is selfish, concerned with its own narrow personal interests. The size and strength of your ego is the degree to which you are dominated by your animal nature. Your ego is your animal residue, becoming weaker and more vestigial with the passage of time.

The Purpose of Law is Animal Control

Historically, a strong ego was very useful as we evolved out of lower life forms. The evolution of Homo sapiens out of Homo Brutus is the story of a struggle to survive, and survival usually depended on extreme selfishness. One lived by one’s guile, speed, ferocity and supreme acts of will.

Our animal tendency is to take by force, to violently wrest what we need from the environment. Animal-dominated people are frequently criminals. Our prisons are full of them. Depending on their luck and personal power, they can become lowly pick-pockets or totalitarian dictators.

Criminality and tyranny are caused by unchecked animality. The real purpose of law is to liberate our humanity by restraining our animal nature (the inclination to take the life, liberty and property of others). Aristotle tells us that

“At his best, man is the noblest of animals.
Separated from law and justice, he is the worst.”

While our animal nature is to take, our human nature (often referred to as our “spiritual” nature) is to give. The highest of our species (like Jesus, Krishna, Mother Teresa and Buddha) live entirely for others. This is what we refer to as being “fully human,” selfless, ego-less. Many saints, Nobel Prize winners and Medal of Honor recipients embody those qualities.

Our human nature is our spiritual (“non-material”) nature. It is what we really are.

How could we be just our bodies when, by all accounts, we survive our physical death? Also, millions have had near-death and out-of-body experiences. They have discovered that their awareness is not dependent on having a body.

In other words, you are a spiritual being having a physical experience. Winston Churchill tells us:

“The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits, not animals. There is something going on in time and space and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

Though it is tempting to define yourself in material terms, you are not your wealth, your reputation, your clothes … or your body.

Every two years you discard your body. It completely reproduces itself, right down to the last atom. Your old body is dead and gone --recycled. All of the cells are brand new, yet it’s the same old you inside.

The essential you is the ghost in the machine (your body), an inner observer who sees and thinks and loves. The observer is an individual expression of the universal mind. It is the observer in me which is writing the words on this page. It is the observer in you which is reading them.

[And here’s the kicker: according to the leading physicists of our time, your observer and my observer are the same observer.]

This observer is not your eyes or brain. It is independent of (and not generated by) biology. The observer (the most irreducible “you”) is nothing but awareness/consciousness/intelligence itself --- that which is aware of the world and of itself (aware that it is aware).

Many of history’s greatest spiritual leaders (and some scientists, as you know) contend that awareness is the fundamental reality of life. According to the great psychiatrist David Hawkins,

“The sought-for commonality to all realms of subjective experience and [objective] investigation turns out to be the omnipresent energy field traditionally denoted as “consciousness,” the very substrate and core of all existence and of intelligence itself.”

Consciousness and Political Sovereignty

Our greatest wisdom and strength come from our spirit, not from our biology. The animal ego is weak and selfish. The human spirit is strong and wise.
Sovereignty is the measure of that strength.

Sovereignty is a matter of degree. Your sovereignty is the extent to which you have grown out of your animal nature and into your human nature. Your true sovereignty is your level of consciousness.

When the personal power and intelligence of enough individuals reaches a certain level, a society is capable of sustaining a real democracy.

The founders didn’t use words like “consciousness,” but they were adamant that the ability to self-govern depends on the “virtue” and “morality” of the People. This is
a clear reference to the level of collective consciousness -- the strength of the life force of a society. If there is insufficient strength, self-governance is impossible.

Ben Franklin tells us that “only a virtuous people are capable of maintaining their freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” George Washington said that “when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.” John Adams tells us:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

The Natural Aristocracy

Thomas Jefferson observed that there is a direct relationship between higher consciousness and exceptional leadership and that those who are further along on their evolutionary journey make our best elected officials.

There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents . . . . There is also, an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society … May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?”

There is also a natural aristocracy among nations. Here’s how that came about.

For thousands of years, the life force of humanity (collective human consciousness) was so low that despotism and monarchy were necessary to forcibly restrain our lower animal nature in order to prevent anarchy.

Though I have a strong preference for representative government, democracy isn’t always better than an extremely centralized/authoritarian government. Each is appropriate for different stages in the evolution of a society. The consciousness of the people has to become mature and strong enough for them to seize democracy, and this first occurred (on a significant scale) in the late eighteenth century.

Most of the world wasn’t (and isn’t) ready for democracy, and tyrants were (and are) able to seize power by riding the backs of revolutions in the name of the “people.” Indeed, most revolutions are engineered by the tyrant herself.

Making democracy available to a lesser evolved nation is like giving a computer to a two-year-old child. Self-governance can survive only in a society strong and wise enough to handle it.

With the exception of Israel, I simply do not believe that any country in the Middle East or North Africa is able to maintain a democratic form of government. Has there ever been one in that region? I don’t know. I’m just asking.

We wasted $3 trillion and ten years trying to install democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most of these societies detest democracy. They want to be ruled absolutely by an authoritarian system, whether it be secular (Gadhafi, Assad) or theocratic (Iran, ISIS).

You can’t grow a palm tree by placing a coconut on a sidewalk. You can’t expect democracy to grow where people don’t want it or (by history or culture) aren’t ready for it.

Popular sovereignty and democracy can’t be given. They can only be taken, taken by a society that has earned it.

Almost all nations claim to be democratic, but that doesn’t make it so. Consider the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.”

America exported democracy to Japan and Germany after World War II at the point of a bayonet, and it was able to take root because the people’s relatively high level of consciousness provided fertile ground. The culture was able to handle it.

Over the last millennium, the power base of society gradually expanded to include a more numerous ruling class. There’s nothing wrong per se with rule by an “elite.” Governments and economies have often been controlled by a relatively small group of men and women who do a pretty good job. Others don’t.

I can conceive of some situations in which it would be great to be ruled by human beings instead of by laws. We are absolutely ruled by our parents for the first few years of our lives, aren’t we?

I wouldn’t mind being ruled by an oligarchy (the rule of a few) – if you had the right oligarchs! How about a governing body consisting of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mother Teresa and the twelve disciples? I really don’t think absolute power would corrupt those guys, even in the complete absence of law, because they are powerfully aligned with higher law.

The important thing is not what kind of system you have, but the quality of human life that makes up the system, especially its leadership. John Adams summed this up when he said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

In the absence of angels, we should strive to be led by a natural aristocracy, citizens of superior ability and wisdom. It is only because we have no reliable method of electing leaders with high consciousness that the rule of law is so important.

Unfortunately, we are now ruled by an artificial aristocracy which is more concerned with power, wealth and prestige. I pray daily for leaders of strength and wisdom instead of a bunch of godless, America-hating hucksters, agitators, “community organizers” and deep-state swamp rats.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned America that “[v]ery soon, only too soon, your country will stand in need of not just exceptional men but of great men. Find them in your souls. Find them in your hearts. Find them in the depths of your country.”

Donald Trump is such a man. You may not like him, but you don’t need to like him. He’s getting the job done. Winston Churchill was a complete asshole, but he was a blessing to humanity. It’s breathtaking how much difference one person can make. It’s always been like that.

There is also a natural aristocracy among governments.

There are basically only two kinds of government. One is animal-dominated. This form of government is simply the political reflection of an immature/lower level of consciousness which emphasizes the value of society over the individual. This is known as “collectivism.”

Most collectivist revolutions are (allegedly) based on popular sovereignty, but they usually disintegrate quickly into the sovereignty of a government to which the people are subordinate. George Orwell tells us that

“Power is not a means. It is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

The other form of government is human-dominated. It can only exist in a society which values individual sovereignty and freedom over the welfare of the collective.
Generally speaking, collectivism and individual freedom are opposed. The more collectivist a society, the less free it becomes.

All Collectivist Societies Are Opposames

There have been many kinds of collectivist systems. Over the past hundred years the best known are fascism (e.g., Nazi Germany) and communism (e.g., the Soviet Union).

In World War II Germany, Japan and Italy were regarded as far right, or “fascist,” because they were autocratic and nationalistic. Many African and Central/South American governments have since met that definition.

Soviet Russia and Red China were “far left” because they advocated international socialism (communism.) Hitler’s invasion of Russia was offered as proof that fascism and communism were very different. “Look, they’re fighting each other! They must be different!”

However, both systems had economies which were completely controlled by the state, and their alleged “representative” governments weren’t all that, uh . . . representative. Both were genocidal military dictatorships which killed 100 million of their own people. For the survivors, the degree of personal freedom was close to zero.

See the difference? Me neither. The takeaway is that Fascism = Socialism. “Equals” means “the same as.” Fascism is the same as Socialism.

All collectivist societies are “opposames.” Opposames are organizations which appear to be different (and which often appear to oppose each other) but which are merely different faces/expressions of the same underlying energy/reality.

They are essentially the same society with different names, i.e., a frequently genocidal socialist state in which all power is concentrated at the peak of a pyramid of control, and in which freedom is as common as hair on my head.

In other words, all collectives are totalitarian systems – they impose total control over those whom they pretend to serve.

Surprisingly, theocratic regimes can be the opposames of secular ones. ISIS is a theocratic oppposame of both godless fascism and godless communism.

The only difference with current theocratic terrorism is that there are no concentration camps. That’s because there is usually no one left alive to incarcerate.

The Animal Left and the Human Right

Henceforth, I will frequently refer to all collectivist political systems as the “Animal Left” or “statists” because of their reliance on governmental force to accomplish their goals. Conversely, I will refer to those political systems which are dedicated to advancing individual freedom as the “Human Right.”

Animal Politics is Low-Life Politics and Human Politics is High-Life Politics.

The democratic and freedom-based systems of the Right are probably very familiar to the reader. Less well-known is the real nature of other systems whose animal dominance is less obvious. Specifically, there are two movements which deserve inclusion into that group known as the Animal Left.

1) Radical Islam is the poster child for abject savagery, but many object to its characterization as political “left” because of its seeming religious origin.

2) Global Progressivism (including its North American regional branch, the Democrat Party) is clearly leftist, but the extent of its animal dominance is not well known.

My thesis is that Radical Islam and Progressivism are opposames of all of the animal-dominated collectivist movements discussed above. Despite apparent differences in ideology and style, all are faces of the very same movement.

I would like to make my case by presenting the ten primary characteristics of collectivist movements (and their leaders) and then showing how Radical Islam and Progressivism possess these characteristics.
Here goes ….


The Ten Characteristics of the Animal Left

1) Belief in Life as Warfare
Just as certain kinds of fish are drawn to different depths of the ocean, certain beliefs and attitudes are characteristic of different levels of consciousness. Each level has its big fish, a core belief which inspires a world view that is characteristic of that level.

A high level of consciousness perceives a world that is friendly and safe. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The universe is framed on a principle of benevolence.” A low level of consciousness (e.g., collectivism) perceives that life is hostile and dangerous. Survival is always at risk.

In other words, the collectivist world view is that life is warfare.

Accordingly, collectivists transform their societies into armies. Collectivism is a military response to a continuous attack by a ubiquitous enemy.

Global Progressivism (and its North American regional branch, the Democrat Party) is a classic example of an animal-dominated political movement. Indeed, it is the opposame of all of the collectivist movements discussed above. They are all the same movement.

Here’s my case.

Progressivism maintains that the welfare of society is more important than the rights and freedoms of its individual members. According to Hillary Clinton, “[we] must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

I guess Hillary forgot that the only purpose of American law and government is the protection of the rights and freedom of … (wait for it) … the individual. Bruce Lee reminds us that, “[m]an, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any style or system.”

Progressives consist largely of humanimals who have not yet gained sufficient maturity, wisdom and personal power to embrace a political philosophy based on individual freedom.

Indeed, Progressives believe that individual freedom is a problem. Progressivism is a movement dedicated to restraining individual freedom.

Like most animals, Progressives respect force, and their movement is led by the ultimate alpha male -- government. The Progressive solution to all problems is to grant more and more power to a central government in order to force the people to part with their wealth and modify their behavior in order to implement a leftist/statist ideology.

Bottom Line: If you’re using government to implement a political ideology by force, then you are in the war business, and the Progressive strategy is to ever widen the theater of war.

Progressive Warfare

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) is the founding father of modern Progressivism (and the “new” Democrat Party.) Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals is Progressivism’s founding document.

Barack Obama’s political career is the embodiment of the Alinsky method, which he taught in seminars for a number of years. Until 1996 Obama was both the attorney and top trainer for ACORN, then the largest Alinsky-style organization in the U.S. (guilty of the most extensive election fraud in American history).

Obama never mentioned Alinsky in any of his books. Neither did Hillary Clinton. She met him in high school and invited him to speak at Wellesley College which she entered in 1965. They became good friends. Real good friends. She wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky (entitled “There is Only The Fight, an Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”)

Unfortunately, it became unavailable because, when Hillary Clinton became First Lady, she saw to it that the thesis was removed from her Wellesley records.

Why have Barack and Hillary hidden their relationship with Saul Alinsky from you? Because …

Saul Alinsky Was a Gangster

He was the long-time associate and understudy of Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s “enforcer.” (I kid you not.)

Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals, are the rules of a gangster. All of them are focused on taking. Taking is what animals do. Taking is what Alinsky taught.

In Alinsky’s own words,

“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.”

Seizing. This is what tyrants do. It is not civilized behavior.

The first words on the first page of Alinsky’s first chapter are a biblical quote (Job 7:1): “The life of man upon the earth is a warfare.” Does this sound familiar?

Progressives believe that life is war, and their politics are conducted according to its rules. For Progressives the war is total. They seek not only to defeat but to destroy the enemy, or as Lenin recommended, “to wipe him from the face of the earth.”

“There is no real parallelism in the war which radicals have declared. One side is fighting with a no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism. This is the Achilles’ heel of democracies and all radical spears are aimed in its direction.”

Leftist radicals believe that their enemy (the Haves) must be totally eliminated. In their view, society is rigidly organized in a pancake-like stack of social classes (like the old caste system of India), and to improve the condition of the lower class, the oppressive upper class must be completely removed.

You can see how childish and primitive this kind of “thinking” is. I am reminded of Groucho Marx [I’m sorry. I mean Karl Marx] whose Communist Manifesto is a naked declaration of war.

What a moron!! What a drooler this Karl Marx!! According to Horowitz,

“The idea that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have-Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, leads directly to the idea that the open society can be achieved only by the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the conflict. This, according to radicals, will lead to the liberation of mankind. In fact, it led directly to the deaths of 100 million people in the last century, murdered by radicals in power on the way to their dream.”

Like Marx, Progressives believe that capitalism is the culprit. Progressivism is simply recycled Marxism with a splash of Old Spice. These rocket scientists contend that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, and that capitalists have more than their “fair share.” (I suppose a fair share is determined by dividing all of the wealth in the world by the number of its inhabitants.)

The Animal Left believes that to achieve “economic equality” and “social justice,” the wealth of the Haves in capitalist societies must be redistributed to the Have-Nots in the plundered societies.

For said wealth to be redistributed it must be retaken, and what better way for the Have-Nots to retake it than to conquer the evil nations who robbed them and drove them out of their Garden of Eden.

It is so interesting that Fascism, Communism and Islamism (radical Islam) all openly declare their intention to dominate the world, whether for the master race (Aryan), the master class (the proletariat) or the master faith (Islam). According to Eric Arthur Blair, who used the pen name “George Orwell,”

“The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The Animal Left always accuses America of being the great imperialist, a/k/a the Great Satan.

If we Americans are such imperialist swine, why do we always pull out of those countries we “conquer” – like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Hell, we usually help our enemies rebuild their countries.

During recent wars in the Middle East we didn’t steal one drop of oil, one square inch of real estate or one scraggly goat. So kiss my ass!

The Hard Left is so obsessed with its own rapacity, greed and lust for conquest that it assumes that everyone else is similarly motivated. This is known in psychiatry as “projection.”

The foregoing is a portion of the first chapter of Monte’s new book, High Life v. Low Life, to be published on January 15, 2019.

[1] Yes, loving!  As Thomas Jefferson said, “The universe is framed on a principle of benevolence.”
[2] David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D., Discovery of the Presence of God (Sedona Arizona, Veritas Publishing, 2006), pp. 26-27.
[3]  David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005) p. 6.
[4] Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap, as quoted on p 49.
[5] Ibid, p xviii.
[6] Andrew M. Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 2008), p. 351.
[7] All credit to David Icke, inventor of the “opposame” concept.
[8] Fascist societies are “socialist” because fascist governments always own or control the society’s means of production.  Indeed, the fascist term “Nazi” is an abbreviation for “National Socialism.”
[9] According to David Alinsky, Saul’s son: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democrat campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
[10] Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, (Vintage Books, New York, 1989) p. 3.
[11] David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules For Revolution, The Alinsky Model (David Horowitz Freedom Center, Sherman Oaks, California, 2009) p.33.
[12]However, the classes of society in America are not fixed.  Ours is not a caste system in which someone born into an “untouchable” caste can never rise to become a member of the Brahmin caste. We have social mobility.  We can move from one class (say, middle class) to another (upper or lower).  David Horowitz tells us:

“In the real world of American democracy, social and economic divisions are really between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots.  The vast majority of wealthy Americans, as a matter of empirical fact, are first generation wealthy and have created what they possess.  In the process of creating wealth for themselves, they have created wealth for hundreds and sometimes thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of others.  But to describe the wealthy as wealth earners and wealth creators – that is, to describe them accurately – is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to radical lives, inspires the radicals’ war, and has been the source of the most repressive regimes and the greatest social disasters in the history of mankind.”

[13] The Communist Manifesto begins as follows: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.  Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
[14] Ibid at p. 36.
[15] George Orwell, 1984 (Signet, New York, 1992), p. 159.

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Natural Law

How I Became a Health Lawyer

Montfort S. Ray, J.D

Bill Moore - Health Lawyer

William Harry Moore, Jr. was a savage. He loved to fight.

He was a medic in World War II, until the enemy started shooting at him. Bill grabbed a rifle, sneaked up behind them and gunned down eight German soldiers.

Then he cut off their heads with his bayonet.

They say he had gone into some kind of altered state. The platoon leader sidled up to him and said “Easy now, Sergeant. We’re on your side.” Then he gently took Bill’s bayonet.

France gave him the Croix de Guerre (the equivalent of our Congressional Medal of Honor) for pulling several French soldiers out of a burning tank. Whenever Bill entered a restaurant, the French would jump to attention and salute. He never had to buy a drink for the rest of the war.

There was an M.D. after Bill’s name. He graduated from the University of Munich medical school (the U.S. Army paid his tuition) and became an excellent surgeon. However, Bill had wanted to be a lawyer ever since he attended a trial as a fourth grader, and when he returned to the U.S., he decided to practice law.

Bill never went to law school. Instead, he “read law” under the supervision of a couple of lawyers and then passed the bar exam. Being unburdened by a formal legal education, Bill was unusually creative and unorthodox. He became a legal maverick and a very successful one.

Bill’s specialty was attacking doctors – medical malpractice. He tried over 500 cases. Big cases.

A lot of Bill’s success was due to the fact that he was bipolar. In his heyday, he would go without sleep for weeks (yes, weeks) at a time investigating and preparing cases.

One day in 1981 Bill announced he was in the business of defending doctors. Not all doctors, only those who were totally committed to healing their patients. Most aren’t. Most are just mechanics.

After a couple of years, Bill Moore became one America’s greatest legal champions of natural medicine [sometimes known as alternative, complementary, integrative or real medicine].

In the summer of 1999 I needed his help. I had been hired by a naturopath who claimed he had a cure for cancer. He did have a cure. He was beating cancer like a drum.

My client was being hounded by the FDA for using an unapproved medicine. The agency didn’t care about whether he was actually curing cancer. “That’s irrelevant,” they said. “We’re just doing our job, Mr. Ray.” That’s good to know, y’all. It really is.

I was beginning to understand that even if my client could raise to life all the corpses in a cemetery, the FDA would never approve his medicine. The FDA isn’t a watchdog for the People; it’s a lapdog for the medical industrial complex.

I had heard of Bill’s reputation as a “health lawyer,” and I wanted to get his advice on how to handle this case. I made an appointment. I was surprised to learn that his office and home were only six blocks from where I grew up.

I drove to his mansion on Victory Drive, the most beautiful street in Savannah, Georgia, my home town. His beautiful wife Marjorie [now my beautiful wife – long story] met me at the front door and led me to the back of the house which was completely filled with cigarette smoke. After a few pleasantries, I asked Bill’s advice on how to approach the FDA.

He immediately sprang to his feet, pounded the kitchen table and roared. “Monte, the best way to handle this case, like any case, is to launch a fang-snapping offense that leaves your opponent rocking and rolling in misery!”

I was stunned that the old buzzard was still so ferocious. I said “Listen, Bill, shouldn’t I try to resolve the case first? I haven’t even spoken to the FDA agent. Why attack him before even discussing the case with him?”

I was concerned that Bill and I weren’t getting off on the right foot. He looked at me silently for a moment, and then said “Look, cap’n, the way you practice law is up to you. Personally, I’d rather hear a bureaucrat scream than a pretty girl sing. The trouble with you younger lawyers these days is that you don’t know how to properly insult anybody.”

I now understood how Bill Moore had become the Darth Vader of my profession, a man who drafted lawsuits in the harsh, accusatory language of the common law, and whose legal briefs often had to be printed on asbestos.

After another awkward silence, I tried to steer the conversation into calmer waters. “Hey, Bill, why the about-face from attacking doctors to defending them?”

As soon as I asked that question, a profound change came over Bill. I had apparently triggered an alter ego. This second personality was calm and patient and scholarly.

“Monte, it was because I learned about the Vis Medicatrix Naturae.”.

I laughed and said “Come on, Bill, I love Latin as much as the next lawyer, but what the hell is that?”

“Monte, let me tell you something. No doctor or medicine has ever healed anyone of anything. It’s the life force alone that heals, the Vis Medicatrix Naturae. The healing power of nature. Let me break that down for you - - - the healing (medicatrix) power (vis) of nature (naturae). This is a powerful energy which expresses through all life forms and heals all wounds -- physical, emotional and spiritual. The true healer’s job is to remove obstacles to the flow of the life force and then get the hell out of the way.”

As Bill began to describe the Vis Medicatrix Naturae, I began to slowly stand up. Instinctively, I recognized the importance of what was being given to me and its relevance to my journey.

Bill gave me a funny look and sat me back down. He continued to explain that there is a loving essence within us which wants to heal and uplift us, and that the rediscovery of this truth is revolutionizing modern medicine.

“Conventional medicine is not based on the life force,” Bill continued. “If it were, curing disease would be no big deal. The purpose of healthcare today is sickness management, not healing. If you heal a patient you lose an income stream.”

“But, Bill,” I protested, “what about all those diseases we used to have, like smallpox and polio and the bubonic plague. Medicine wiped them out, didn’t it?”

Suddenly Mr. Hyde was back, and Dr. Jekkyl was cowering in the corner. “Hell no! When vaccines came along, infectious diseases were already disappearing because of improved hygiene. For example, they never made a vaccine for bubonic plague. You know anybody who’s got the plague?

Most vaccines are as likely to give you the very disease they are designed to prevent. Also, most of them are contaminated. In the 1950’s the chance that your child would be autistic was 1 in 10,000. Today, it’s 1 in 100. It’s the mercury in the vaccines.

Monte, the Amish refuse to immunize their kids. They did this study on Amish children. They figured that, according to an incidence rate of 1 in 160, there ought to be 130 autistic Amish children. There were only four. One of them had been exposed to some manufacturing waste, and the other three had been vaccinated.”

Flabbergasted, I blurted out, “But what about the war on cancer, Bill? The CDC claims that a victory over cancer is right around the corner.”

Bill jumped up with blood in his eye. “War on cancer, my ass! There is no war on cancer. It’s a phony war. The cancer industry is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. Big Pharma doesn’t want to cure cancer. They’re making billions by peddling chemicals that cost them pennies.

About 500,000 Americans get chemotherapy every year, and very few of them get any benefit in terms of being “cured.” There’s a lot of talk about the tumor “shrinking” in “response” to the chemo, thereby putting the disease into “remission.” Remission almost always means a temporary abatement of cancer symptoms which usually return. Occasionally chemo will add a few more months of life, but that sure as hell isn’t a “cure,” particularly when the quality of life is so lousy.

Also, except for testicular cancer and certain lymphomas, you don’t even get a “response” from chemotherapy. For example, chemo has absolutely no effect on pancreatic or liver cancer, much less a curative one.

Conventional cancer therapy is the purest and sheerest quackery. A “quack” is someone who is medically incompetent, ignorant and/or fraudulent. With few exceptions, oncologists can’t cure cancer, they don’t want to know what does, and they don’t care that modern medicine has become the leading cause of death in this country.”

As a result, your chances of getting cancer are about 1 in 2 for men, and 1 in 3 for women. About one in four will die from it. It’s been that way ever since the war on cancer was declared by Nixon in 1971. The CDC points to a slight drop in the incidence of cancer in the 1990’s but that’s because of improved screening and earlier diagnosis. Also, there’s less smoking [I choked back a laugh] and more people are living cleaner and using alternative medicine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the efforts of the cancer industry because they have nothing to do with preventing or curing disease. That’s what alternative medicine is all about – prevention and real healing. Did you know that more people who pay cash for their healthcare choose alternative medicine over conventional?

The alternative doctors in our network have been very successful in curing cancer for most of their patients if they haven’t been too ravaged by chemotherapy and radiation. Jim Privitera, Stanislaw Burzynski, Dan Clark, Elmer Cranton, Harvey Biegelson, Bruce Halstead and Nick Gonzales are a few of those doctors.”

[Note: Nick Gonzales, who treats pancreatic cancer with pancreatic enzymes, claims that “more than 50% of our patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer do very well long-term, and by very well, I mean 7 or 8 years down the line.”

Dr. Burzynski uses biologically active peptides (antineoplastons) with great success on cancer of the brain, breasts, prostate, colon, lungs, ovaries and … liver. According to Dr. Burzynski, “[w]e now know that chemo will speed up the progress of liver cancer. There is no reason to use it. Scientific works have proven beyond any doubt that chemo is completely ineffective, yet doctors are using chemotherapy for liver cancer over and over again. Practically all patients with advanced liver cancer will die. But with our treatment, these liver tumors have disappeared in a matter of a couple of months, if you use the right combination of targeted therapy.” ]

Bill was really rolling now. “Modern medicine, known as allopathic medicine, says that we are victims of invading disease agents which should be attacked on the battleground of the patient’s body and driven out. Medicine is ritualized exorcism. The object is to cut, burn and poison the patient until the disease entity departs. The war on cancer is a great example. Cancer cells and tumors are the invaders, and chemotherapy and radiation are the weapons.

However, disease is not an alien invader from “out there.” You don’t “catch” cancer by bumping into a bug. Cancer patients grow their own cancers by providing a suitable “culture” or “terrain.”

All of us have cancer all the time. Each of us has millions of cancer cells that are easily handled by our immune system. Oncologists “diagnose” cancer only when the number or concentration of cancer cells becomes pronounced.

So, cancer is not the real disease. Cancer is just a symptom. There’s only one disease, although it has many faces, like diabetes, Parkinson’s, cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc. The only real disease is starvation.

All of the diseases that doctors diagnose are just symptoms of cellular starvation. Your cells are malfunctioning, and they’re creating cancer or diabetes or Parkinson’s or arteriosclerosis for one or more of the following reasons: 1) They aren’t getting the nutrients they need. 2) They aren’t getting the oxygen they need. 3) Toxins and poisons aren’t being carried away properly.

Think about it. Cancer is caused by cellular malfunction. What is one of the primary causes of cellular malfunction? Poison! What is chemotherapy and radiation? Poison! Oncology is carcinogenic. It’s creating as much cancer as it’s eliminating. You just can’t poison a sick person well.

Also, all diseases have another thing in common - - - they’re all energy diseases - - - the patient loses energy. The main purpose of cells is the production of ATP, the molecule that gives us energy. When cells can’t function properly, ATP production is impaired, and people get “sick.” They lose energy.

If you don’t like cancer, then create ways to deliver oxygen and food to your cells and remove the toxins and wastes that are gunking them up. The object is not to kill cancer cells, but to feed healthy cells. When you are healthy again, the cancer cells will vanish.

Trying to kill cancer cells is as futile as trying to kill pine beetles. Foresters regard pine beetles as a disease of trees, but their real disease is created by acid rain. The toxicity in rain has been poisoning and weakening the trees. Pine beetles are just doing their job of scavenging and eating weakened, diseased pine trees.

Just like that, you grow your own diseases. Tumors and germs (bugs) generally don’t come around you until you smell good to them, and “good” means “sick.”.

There are many non-toxic ways to cure cancer: aloe, fresh juices, mega-nutrition, chelation, ozone, hyperthermia, laetrile, detoxification and sunlight. The reason they work so well is that they feed and cleanse the body at the cellular level, thereby supporting the 800-pound gorilla of healing – the Vis Medicatrix Naturae.

The best way to treat disease is to cooperate with the life force by cleaning and feeding your body, and then getting the hell out of the way. But today’s medicine makes war on disease symptoms. That’s partly because it sees disease as an invader, and partly because fighting disease with high-tech procedures, tests, surgery and pharmaceutical drugs makes the industry a lot more money.

Making war on disease just doesn’t work. It’s a lousy way to heal and it injures the patient. Chemotherapy and radiation blow out the immune system, leaving the patient alive, but with a poor quality of life.”

“Advanced cases are another matter,” Bill growled. “Radiation and chemo may shrink some large tumors and give the patient a few more months or even a year to live. But, be smart with the chemo. Use smaller doses and potentize them with, say, insulin or laetrile, which drive the chemo into the cancer cells. You kill more cancer without crippling the immune system.

Listen, Monte, I’m not saying we ought to junk modern medicine. There will always be a place for surgery, pharmaceutical drugs and emergency medicine for treating trauma and advanced illness, like debulking tumor mass and helping an overwhelmed immune system.

Real medicine is integrative medicine --- the best of conventional and alternative medicine. I like the motto of the old Association of Eclectic Physicians --- “Whatever Works!”

The Apprentice

I left Bill’s home that day with a sprained brain. It took me a few days to sort things out. When I recovered, I knew I had to go back for more.

I realized very clearly from our first meeting that an important phase of my life was about to begin. All of my professional life I had searched, largely in vain, for a way to practice law to help others and to make the world a better place. And Bill had been searching for a lawyer to whom he could pass on his knowledge of medicine, healing and law. We were a perfect fit.

Also, the Vis Medicatrix Naturae, the life force, was a perfect fit spiritually for me because I had already been working with it -- for 50 years.

I know that deep within us there is a common source of all life, and that this source is where life is most alive, vital and powerful. More importantly, it’s possible to contact this source and thereby increase one’s own level of aliveness.

I do it with meditation. Are you ready for this?

As of October 1, 2018, I have meditated twice a day for 49 years (about 1½ hours per day). That’s 35,770 meditations lasting a total of 26,827 hours. That’s over 1117 days in meditation --– almost exactly three years. That’s a lot of time with your eyes closed, sportsfans!

No matter how rough things get in my life, when I come out of meditation, I’m refreshed, happier, clearer and more energetic. I’m more alive. In fact, that’s what “source” is to me – pure aliveness.

My understanding of the life force gradually transformed how I practiced law and lived my life. I came to understand that healing encompasses every area of human endeavor and expression.

Whether you’re in the doctoring business or the lawyering business, you’re really in the healing business. The purpose of both law and medicine is to heal wounds, whether in the form of physical disease or social conflict. Like thousands of my colleagues, I instinctively work for a resolution which all parties are satisfied with. I’m not always successful, and some disputes need to be fought out. But I try.

Over the next couple of years Bill taught me to become a “health lawyer,” representing doctors, chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and other alternative practitioners, before medical boards, the FDA, etc. When I wasn’t practicing law, I was in Bill’s conference room in Savannah where he lectured me on law and medicine.

Bill Moore didn’t talk like a normal person. He growled. When he got worked up he would roar and pound the table. During his bipolar manic phases, he was a man on fire.

Bill would wear me out every day. We’d usually begin at noon. I listened, asked an occasional question and made notes. Around midnight he’d let me go, my eyes smarting from cigarette smoke.

After a couple of years of this collaboration, Bill was starting to repeat himself, a sign of his advancing age and my ability to retain most of what he had to teach. I was becoming a knowledgeable citizen of the world of alternative health.

Around the middle of 2002, toward the end of my “apprenticeship,” Bill and I decided to organize an alternative medical clinic near Savannah. We called it the New Paradigm Health Center. Our goal was to create a new healthcare model. We had arranged for the donation of around 300 acres of land, and we assembled a group of dedicated healers who would spearhead the project. Let me tell you about a few of these guys.

Bill, of course, was the leader, a master of both law and medicine. Marjorie Moore, Bill’s wife, was a real player in her own right. Marjorie is the best medical researcher and paralegal on the planet, and she’s the only one of us who could really stand up to Bill and back him down.

Steve Haltiwanger, MD, is a board-certified neuro-psychiatrist from Valdosta, Georgia who prescribed nutritional supplements (instead of pharmaceuticals) for his patients. Many of them got better so fast that they left their mental hospitals and nursing homes and went home. Those very institutions (and some of his fellow psychiatrists) complained to the medical board! Long story short, Dr. Haltiwanger was run out of town by his own profession for being too good a healer. Medicine is big business, and Steve was bad for business.

Tom Brissey. Tom was a top fighter pilot in Viet Nam. When he returned home he decided to become a doctor. In medical school he asked his instructors why there were no courses on nutrition and herbs. He also protested that pharmaceutical drugs didn’t cure but were only palliative. As a result, he was often called on the carpet for his “misbehavior.” Eventually, he told them to “shove it.” Tom then became a chiropractor, a profession more in alignment with his commitment to natural healing. Tom was the best chiropractor I have ever known, and I’ve known many.

This brings us to Dr. Mike Cargile, a chiropractor, acupuncturist, chemist, martial artist and master of Chinese medicine. He’s also a male “Erin Brockovich”. He tirelessly educates the public about the misdeeds of corporations in South Georgia who have been polluting the Floridan aquifer. Cargile says he gets his inspiration from his mother who has developed Alzheimer’s from drinking the water. Mike says the villains have made several attempts on his life.

All of us were really stoked about opening the clinic. We were raring to go. Our motto was …

“You say I’ve got cancer, Doc? What a relief!
I thought it might be something serious.”

Then my world was blown apart!

Bill inhaled some toxic fumes from a burning rubber chair cushion, and he became very sick. He checked into a hospital. He had to be real sick to do that. Bill hated hospitals. He died there the next day, August 15, 2002.

I was so stunned. For days I just went through the motions of living. All my life I had searched for a mentor like Bill. Now he was gone.

That was the easy part. Then the bottom really fell out.

A few days later, my beloved wife, Cathy, was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer. I was about to find out how serious cancer can be. The following year would be the challenge of my life. Like they said in the movie, “The Matrix,”

“Buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, ‘cause Kansas is going bye-bye.”


[1] Naturopathy has been defined as “the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of human injuries, ailments and disease by the use of such physical forces as air, light, water, vibration, heat, electricity, hydrotherapy, psychotherapy, dietetics or massage, and the administration of botanical and biological drugs.”  Tennessee Code Annotated 63-6-205.

[1] Suzanne Somers, Knockout, Interviews with Doctors Who are Curing Cancer (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2009), p. 90.
[1] Ibid., p. 72.

[1] According to one alternative practitioner whom Bill respected,
[c]uring cancer has little to do with getting rid of a group of detectable cancer cells.  Treatment like chemotherapy and radiation are certainly capable of poisoning or burning many cancer cells, but they also destroy healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc., which often leads to permanent irreparable damage of entire organs and systems in the body.  A real cure of cancer does not occur at the expense of destroying other vital parts of the body.


Each year, hundreds of thousands of people who were once “successfully” treated for cancer die from infections, heart attacks, liver failure, kidney failure and other illnesses because the cancer treatments generate a massive amount of inflammation and destruction in the organs and systems of the body.  Of course, these causes of death are not being attributed to cancer.  This statistical omission makes it appear we are making progress in the war against cancer.  However, many more people are dying from the treatment of cancer than from cancer.  A real cure for cancer is achievable only when the causes of excessive growth of cancer cells have been removed or stopped.

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Natural Medicine

The Federal Reserve: The True Story of the Hijacking of the American Economy

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

The Federal Reserve


The Creation of the Federal Reserve

On November 22, 1910, a train carrying financiers who represented about one-third of the wealth of the world left Hoboken, New Jersey, for a nine day trip to Jekyll Island, Georgia, just down the coast from Savannah, my home town . . . to hunt ducks.

They sure didn’t act like duck hunters. They were quite sneaky. According to Bertie Charles Forbes, founder of Forbes Magazine (the grandfather of its current Editor, Steve Forbes), writing in December of 1916:

“Picture a party of the Nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing [hastening] hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking on to an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learned their identity and disclosed to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance.”[1]

There’s nothing wrong per se with being sneaky. The Manhattan Project was sneaky, and it probably saved many thousands of American lives (and millions of Japanese lives) because it appeared that Japan was not going to surrender and that we would have to invade the Japanese home islands. Also, it turns out that Japan had a sneaky little atomic project of its own and was about a month away from being able to drop a nuclear device on the U.S. That threat was eliminated when Little Boy and Fat Man exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Jekyll Island boys were about to drop a bomb of their own, a financial bomb. The real purpose of the trip was to create a new banking system and a new form of money for the United States of America.

There were seven men in attendance at the Jekyll Island conference. I have highlighted the names of the men and banks I regard as significant. U.S. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI); Frank Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York (let’s call it “City Bank”); Paul Warburg, a partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co., an investment bank (“Kuhn & Loeb”); A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Charles Norton, President of the First National Bank of New York (let’s call it “First Bank”); Benjamin Strong, President of Bankers Trust; Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan & Company.

Who Was In Charge?

Some say that there were really only two men at the conference: John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan -- though neither was physically present. Rockefeller was the oil tycoon who had become the richest man in history. Morgan ruled a financial and railroad empire. Some said he was the richest man in history.

“From the 1890s until World War II, much of American political history, of programs and conflicts, can be interpreted not so much as “Democrat vs. Republican,” but as the interaction or conflict between the Morgans and their allies on the one hand, and the Rockefeller … alliance on the other.”[2]

Rockefeller and Morgan were the real architects of the Federal Reserve because they absolutely controlled the men and banks which built it and ran it.

All of the banks represented at Jekyll Island were New York banks, and they were the largest and most prestigious in the country. Rockefeller’s two flagship banks were “City Bank” and Kuhn & Loeb. The Morgan banks were J.P. Morgan & Co., “First Bank,” and Bankers Trust.

“City Bank” and “First Bank,” the country’s largest commercial depository banks, merged in 1955 to eventually become the core of today’s Citibank. In 1913 Kuhn & Loeb (later to become American Express) and J.P. Morgan & Co. were the largest investment banks in the U.S. The latter would later become J.P. Morgan Chase.

[It is no coincidence that J.P. Morgan Chase, America’s largest bank, was created by the 1996 merger of the flagship bank of the Morgan empire (J.P. Morgan & Co.) and the flagship bank of the Rockefeller empire (Chase Manhattan Bank). They still rule the roost.]

Back in the day, if you wanted to create an alliance, you apparently cemented it with marriage. In the 1870s, Rockefeller’s brother William decided to buy into City Bank when James Stillman was its president. William’s two sons promptly married James’ two irresistible daughters. Shortly thereafter, the bank became the repository of the Rockefellers’ oil and railroad assets and income.

Senator Nelson Aldrich was the Majority Whip of the Senate. He would later become the grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller because his daughter married “Junior,” Rockefeller’s son. It really could have been the sheerest of coincidences that the world’s richest man and the Senate’s staunchest supporter of big business and the “Money Trust” (Big Banks) produced offspring who found each other irresistible. It really could have.

Henry Davison and Benjamin Strong were clearly “Morgan’s men.” Rothbard tells us that

“Benjamin Strong’s entire life had been a virtual preparation for his assumption of power at the Federal Reserve. Strong was a long time protégé of the immensely powerful Henry P. Davison, the number two partner of the Morgan bank just under J.P. Morgan himself, and effective operating head of the Morgan world empire. . . . When the Morgans created the Bankers Trust Company in 1903 to compete in the rising new trust business, Davison named Strong as its secretary, and by 1914, Strong had married the firm’s president’s daughter and himself risen to president of Bankers Trust.”[3]

The NY Fed Controls the Whole System

Much has been made about whether the Federal Reserve is public or private. The truth is that it is both. The Fed is a partnership between several large private banks and the federal government. First let’s take a look at the private nature of the Fed.

Federal courts have consistently ruled that the Fed is a private corporation. The banks at Jekyll were not just the midwives of the Federal Reserve. They (and several other private banks) owned and do own the Federal Reserve. They are the Federal Reserve.

If the Fed is so federal, why is it that all of its stock is owned by private banks? Why is it that the federal government has never owned a single share?

A better question is why is there any need to even issue shares if the Fed is federal? No other federal agency has ever issued shares of stock. What’s the point?

Like the First and Second Banks of the “United States,” the private nature of the new central bank was hidden by calling it “Federal” and the name “Reserve” was added to imply a guarantee against bank runs. The “central” bank stigma was avoided by creating twelve regional banks, although eleven of them were strictly ornamental. One of the twelve completely ruled the system.

Because the New York banks dominated national banking in 1913, only New York banks were welcome at Jekyll, and the Federal Reserve Act was structured to assure continued New York domination. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was the largest (in assets) and the most important of the 12 banks because it is where monetary policy was actually implemented. Whoever controlled the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the whole system.

So, who did control that bank? Share ownership usually translates into corporate control, and when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was created in 1913, the largest shareholders were . . . [wait for it] . . . the Rockefeller and Morgan groups, each taking exactly 35,000 shares each, showing that in creating the Federal Reserve they worked together as equal partners, not as rival empires. The major shareholders were City Bank, 30,000 shares; First Bank, 15,000 shares; National Bank of Commerce, 21,000 shares; Chase National Bank, 6,000 shares; and Marine National Bank, 6,000 shares.[4]

The Banks That Built the Fed Still Rule

As mentioned above, City Bank and First Bank later merged to become Citibank. In 1959 the National Bank of Commerce became Morgan Guaranty Trust which in 2000 merged with Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan (Chase National Bank had merged with the Bank of Manhattan) to form J.P. Morgan Chase. So, the largest banks in the country were and are the principal owners of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Thousands of banks have either gone out of business or have become second or third tier banks since 1913, but the banks which created the Federal Reserve are still on top of the hill.

“It is all too clear, on examining the origin and early years of the Fed, that both in its personnel and chosen monetary and financial policies, the Morgan Empire was in almost supreme control of the Fed.[5]

That control was guaranteed by the identity of the man who was selected to the critical post of Governor of the New York Fed, a man, furthermore, who was by temperament very well equipped to seize in fact the power that the structure of the Fed could offer him. That man, who ruled the Federal Reserve System with an iron hand from its inception until his death in 1928, was one Benjamin Strong.”[6]

Morgan domination ended during Roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1935, control was stripped from the New York Fed and given to the Federal Open Market Committee, dominated by the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.

“The New Deal constituted a concerted Bringing Down and displacement of Morgan dominance; a coalition of opposition financial out-groups combined in the New Deal to topple it from power. This coalition was an alliance of the Rockefellers; a newly-burgeoning Harriman power in the Democratic Party; newer and brasher Wall Street Jewish investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, pushing Kuhn, Loeb into the shade; and such ethnic out-groups as Irish Catholic buccaneer Joseph P. Kennedy, Italian-Americans such as the Giannini family of California’s Bank of America . . .”[7]

Since World War II the various financial interests have entered into a permanent re-alignment: the Morgans and the other financial groups have taken their place as compliant junior partners in a powerful “Eastern Establishment,” led unchallenged by the Rockefellers. [8] Also, though Bank of America and an emergent Wells Fargo are included in the “Big Four” banks, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup continue to dominate because of their initial control over the Federal Reserve System.

The Man Who Still Calls the Tune

Under Rockefeller control the Fed continued to be run by one man. Business is transacted and decisions are made upon motions by the Chairman of the Board of Governors, who rules the roost with near absolute power. Take Alan Greenspan, for example.

“Greenspan’s motions have never failed . . . [W]ith every extra year of his Chairmanship [1987-2006], his ability to move the FOMC the way he wants has just gotten stronger … [I]n the 47 publicly announced votes since the beginning of 1994, there have been just 18 with a single dissent and only one with “no votes.”[9]

The Fed is more than just a privately owned bank. The Fed is the flagship of a cartel, a monopoly consisting of America’s largest and strongest financial services companies.

cartel: 1. An international syndicate, combine, or trust, formed especially to regulate prices and output in some form of business. 2. A coalition of special-interest groups having a common cause. Synonym: monopoly, merger, combination.[10]

These financial service companies are not just “banks” because, largely due to the repeal of various anti-trust laws, banks have re-combined with investment houses, insurance companies and brokerage firms. Citigroup is a good example.

Headed by the Fed, the financial services cartel has entered into a partnership with government. The Fed was created pursuant to an Act of Congress, the Federal Reserve Act, and its Board of Governors is appointed by the President. The partnership is so thorough and interlocked with government that personnel changes between the two realms (via the fabulous “revolving door”) could be monitored with a stop watch.

Also, today’s financial empires are interlocked with the huge (non-financial) business corporations This should come as no surprise because many of these conglomerates existed even before he Fed was created in 1913. For example, it is obvious that a banking cartel created by Rockefeller and Morgan would include the oil, steel and rail empires which they dominated. It is therefore likely that the cartel headed by the Fed includes a large part of corporate America today.


Seriously, Who Really Created the Fed?

A powerful case can be made that there was really only one man at the Jekyll Island conference and that his name was neither Rockefeller nor Morgan. The argument is that the Federal Reserve was internationally orchestrated by the Rothschild banking dynasty, then headed in London by Nathan Rothschild II, Governor of the Bank of England.

Rothschild means “Red Shield.” The Rothschild coat of arms is a fist clutching 5 arrows on a red shield. The Rothschild banking empire began in 1785 when Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of a goldsmith, gave Nathan (one of his five sons) the equivalent of $3,000,000 to invest in London. Nathan used most of the money to finance the military campaigns of the Duke of Wellington.

The Rothschilds were famous for their information network. On June 18, 1815, Nathan stationed a courier at the northwest side of the battlefield at Waterloo. When it became apparent that Wellington would defeat Napoleon, the courier raced for the English Channel and reached Rothschild at Folkestone on the southeast coast of England well in advance of Wellington’s official messenger.

The next morning Nathan occupied his usual seat at the London Stock Exchange, appearing disheveled and panic-stricken. He began selling large quantities of his securities at ridiculously low prices.

“Panic immediately swept the Exchange. Rothschild is selling; he knows we have lost the Battle of Waterloo. Rothschild and all of his known agents continued to throw securities on to the market. Bella [author of The Romance of The Rothschilds] says “nothing could arrest the disaster. At the same time he was quietly buying up all securities by means of secret agents whom no one knew.”[11]

When Wellington’s courier finally arrived the next day, the market skyrocketed. In a few hours, Nathan Rothschild had gained control of the British stock and bond markets. Claiming in 1914 that the story wasn’t true, his grandson sought to enjoin the publishing of a book on the subject. The court ruled that the story was true and dismissed the lawsuit.[12]

The Rothschild Banking Dynasty

With the enormous profits gained from this caper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild sent his other four sons to open additional banking houses in Paris, Frankfurt, Naples and Vienna. By the mid-nineteenth century, the Rothschilds dominated European banking. In 1850, Nathan’s brother James Rothschild’s 600 million francs exceeded the combined wealth of all other French bankers and was topped only by the King’s 800 million.

The Rothschilds dominated the Bank of England because they dominated the major London banks whose members sat on the board.

“He [Nathan Rothschild, Sr.] was succeeded by his eldest son, Nathan Mayer (1840-1915), who became the first Lord Rothschild when he was raised to the peerage and took his seat in the British House of Lords in 1885. The first Lord Rothschild went on to become the Governor of the Bank of England, with untold power to influence the world financial system.”[13]

One day Junior (I mean “His Lordship Baron Nathan de Rothschild”) boasted Let me issue and control a country’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.” According to the historian, John Reeves in his work, The Rothschilds:

“Little could Mayer Amschel have anticipated that his sons would in after years come to exercise such an unbounded sway that the peace of nations would depend upon their nod; that the powerful control they exercised on the European money markets would enable them to pose as the arbiters of peace and war, since they could at their pleasure withhold or furnish the pecuniary means required to carry on a campaign.

But this, incredible as it may seem, was what their vast influence, combined with their enormous wealth and unlimited credit, enabled them to do, for no firms existed strong enough to oppose them for any length of time, or rash enough to take up a business which the Rothschilds had refused. To reach this exalted position, Mayer Amschel and his sons required the cooperation of the states, but, when once he had climbed over their backs and reached the height of his ambition, he was independent of all aid and could act with the greatest freedom, whilst the states remained in a suppliant attitude at his feet.[14]

The Rothschilds had become the wealthiest family in the world. By the end of the nineteenth century, some experts claimed that they controlled over half of the wealth of the world. This was the “Age of Rothschild,” and it was said that “in Europe there is but one power and that is Rothschild.”

To determine the extent of the involvement of the Rothschilds in the creation of the Federal Reserve, it is necessary to consider the seventh member of the duck hunt and his banking connections.

The Rothschilds’ Front Man

There was one man who actually did the dirty work at Jekyll Island.

Paul Warburg and his brother Felix arrived in the U.S. in 1902 from the banking firm of M.M. Warburg (out of Hamburg, Germany.) They went straight to the penthouse of the investment bank Kuhn & Loeb. Paul promptly married the irresistible Nina Loeb, daughter of the firm’s founder, and Brother Felix married the irresistible Frieda Schiff, daughter of the firm’s CEO and senior partner, Jacob Schiff, who had already married Mr. Loeb’s other irresistible daughter, Theresa.

It is settled history that Kuhn & Loeb (Rockefeller’s investment bank) became a Rothschild front shortly after Schiff arrived from Frankfurt in January of 1875. Jacob Schiff was born in the Rothschild/Schiff house in Frankfort, which the two families shared, having lived together in Hamburg for generations. (That could have been just a coincidence. It really could have.)

“Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which represents the Rothschild interest on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister to the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds, and the Rockefellers, in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world in America.”[15]

At the age of 18, John D. Rockefeller was a commodities trader in Ohio. His rise to riches was meteoric. Twenty years later he had become the richest person in history. He controlled 90% of all the refining and marketing of oil in the world, and he owned a third of all oil wells. Rockefeller had near total control of the oil industry, and Standard Oil was the most powerful company on earth.

Rockefeller was a real workhorse, but to go from poverty to world-class mogul in 20 years, you need more than horsepower. You need financing. By his own admission, Rockefeller borrowed heavily during this period. From whom?

“Schiff was the United States representative of the Rothschilds, a family who were supposed to have little influence or interest in America! It was also a Rothschild bank, the National City Bank of Cleveland, which financed the early expansion of the Rockefellers and the Harrimans. The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds (via Kuhn Loeb) would eventually merge some of their banking interests to form the Chase Manhattan Bank.”[16]

J. P. Morgan, Man of Mystery

Also, a very powerful case can be made that J. P. Morgan and Co. was a front for the Rothschilds. The company was created in London by one George Peabody to further various Rothschild enterprises. This arrangement was “inherited” by Peabody’s business partner, Junius S. Morgan, who handed the ball off to his son, J. P. Morgan, Sr. (hereinafter known as “Pierpont.”)

The house of Morgan was actually managed for its benefactor and principal, N. M. Rothschild Company of London. Being Rothschild agents, the Morgans were not fabulously wealthy because almost all of their profits were sent to their handlers.

Upon the death of Pierpont Morgan’s son, Jack, Andrew Carnegie made the following remark about the size of his estate: “And to think he was not a rich man.” [17]

“As they had been at his father’s death, everybody was surprised by the modesty of Jack’s estate - only $16 million before taxes and expenses, $4.6 million afterward.”[18]

A more complete proof that the house of Morgan was a façade for the house of Rothschild is beyond the scope of this book. Should the reader wish to inquire further, I recommend the biography Pierpont Morgan & Friends, Anatomy of a Myth.

Like Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg was immediately made a partner and given a salary of $500,000 (an exorbitant sum, the equivalent of $168,000,000 in today’s dollars, when a decent annual wage for a laborer in 1910 was $500). The five hundred grand was obviously for the purpose of lobbying for the creation of the Federal Reserve. It sure as hell wasn’t compensation for services rendered. He just got off the boat!

Warburg was “The Man” at Jekyll Island. It was he who drafted the Federal Reserve Act in accordance with the blueprint which had been perfected on the Continent. (It would be interesting to compare the wording of the Federal Reserve Act and the legislation which created the Reichsbank in his native Germany.) Paul Warburg briefed the other six at Jekyll on how it was all going to come down.

These men have been hailed as patriots. What a load of rubbish! They were really implementing the tried and true Rothschild modus operendi of taking over the financial systems of nations by creating central banks and then profiting from mayhem, like economic crises and wars, creating them when necessary.

“Just in Time” For World War I

Paul Warburg became a naturalized American citizen in 1911, so, at Jekyll Island (November 22—December 1, 1910) he was still a German citizen! In 1912, he was decorated by the Kaiser! On December 22, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed, and, the ink barely dry on his naturalization papers, Paul Warburg was made President and Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States of America, serving from 1914-1918.

He must have been very surprised to learn that the first Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was fellow Jekyll Islander Benjamin Strong, who served from 1914 to 1928. Small world! [Note: Back then, Board members were called “Presidents” and heads of the Fed regional banks were called “Governors.” The titles were reversed during the New Deal.]

The Federal Reserve was up and running “just in time” to finance World War I. The New York Times announced the Fed would be operational on August 1, 1914. We went to war with Germany on August 4, 1914. (Just a coincidence! Nothing to worry about.)

At the same time Paul Warburg’s brothers Max and Fritz were providing banking services to the German government, and not just any old banking services!

“The 1920 Schiff obituary revealed for the first time that Jacob Schiff, like the Warburgs, also had two brothers in Germany during World War I, Philip and Ludwig Schiff, of Frankfurt-on-Main, who also were active as bankers to the German Government! This was not a circumstance to be taken lightly, as on neither side of the Atlantic were the said bankers obscure individuals who had no influence in the conduct of the war. On the contrary, the Kuhn, Loeb partners held the highest governmental posts in the United States during World War I, while in Germany, Max and Fritz Warburg, and Philip and Ludwig Schiff, moved in the highest councils of Government. According to the Memoirs of Max Warburg, “The Kaiser thumped the table violently and shouted, ‘Must you always be right?’ but then listened carefully to Max’s view on financial matters.”[19]

During the war, Paul Warburg sought to “reassure” President Woodrow Wilson as follows: “I have two brothers in Germany who are bankers. They naturally now serve their country to their utmost ability, as I serve mine.”[20]

That’s so good to know, Paul! It really is! Nobody here but us patriots, right?

I wonder if Paul bothered to tell Woodrow that Brother Max, the director of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg, was the Kaiser’s principal financial advisor (and also the head of the German secret service and espionage system) during World War I, a war in which Brother Paul headed the American central bank.

I wonder if Brother Paul retained his partnership interest in M.M.Warburg. I wonder if he bothered to tell Woody that the principal stockholders in the Reichsbank, the central bank of Germany, were the Warburg and Rothschild banking houses!

Five years later, in June of 1919, Paul and Max would represent “their” countries at Versailles to negotiate the (peace) Treaty of Paris! What a surprise when they bumped into each other at the conference table, eh? Did they have this game wired or what!

They say if you like sausage and law, it’s best not to see either being made.

I guess that applies to central banks, too. They say that the Fed was the highest expression of the natural evolution of the art and science of banking. They lie!!

The creation of the Federal Reserve System was a highjack of the American economy. [21]


America’s Secret Government

There is not a truth existing which I fear

or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”

-- Lord Acton

The Federal Reserve was not only a coup d’état of the American economy, it was a coup d’état of American free enterprise, heralding the birth of the corporate state.

In a classical free enterprise economy, the state is like a referee in a sporting event. His role is to create and enforce the rules of a game in which he is not a player and in which he does not favor a player.

However, the Federal Reserve Act was the death of American free enterprise at the national level. The government abdicated its role as an impartial referee by surrendering its monetary power to a private and unelected financial elite. Since 1913, our government, largely at the direction of the rulers of the Federal Reserve, has legitimized and enforced monopolies in every sector of the American economy.

“The Rockefeller biological (and stockholder) strain has intermingled in an almost unbroken line through half of the nation’s wealthiest sixty families and back again. Throughout it all, the aggregate is solidly controlled, economically at least, by the one family that constitutes the descendants of John D. Rockefeller the First.[22]

One percent of the population owns more than 70% of the nation’s productive property, and 10% own all of it. About half of this in turn is held in trust by the ten leading Wall Street banks, which, in turn, are heavily influenced, if not controlled outright, by a group so small that they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, stated in plain English, represents the greatest and most intense concentration of wealth and power that the world has ever seen.”[23]

A cartel of powerful individuals and companies has gained control of America’s money. Since money is the life blood of an economy, over the last hundred years this cartel has extended its control to include the larger and more important features of the American economy. The extent of that control is not total, but it is vast.

In the Shadows

Historically, control depends largely on secrecy, and the Federal Reserve is no exception.

The Fed refuses to be audited like other banks, and its meetings are not transcribed or open to the public. Minutes are announced after the fact, but there is no way of knowing how complete or accurate they are.

One is reminded of the movie Men In Black in which Agent J (Will Smith) asks Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) “What branch of government do we report to?” “None. They all ask too many questions.”

“It is little known, however, that there is a Federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional Committee knows of or can truly supervise its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody -- and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.” [24]

The Fed says that it is indeed audited every year, but certain functions such as transactions with foreign central banks and open market operations, are excluded from the GAO’s audit. What the hell is left for the GAO to audit, the light bill?

“Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.”[25]

Like the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve has become an economic Star Chamber, an English court famous for its secret and arbitrary functioning:

“Over the years, all early restraints on Fed activities or its issuing of credit have been lifted; indeed, since 1980, the Federal Reserve has enjoyed the absolute power to do literally anything it wants: to buy not only U.S. Government securities but any asset whatever, and to buy as many assets and to inflate credit as much as it pleases. There are no restraints left on the Federal Reserve. The Fed is the master of all it surveys.”[26]

“Master of all it surveys” does not exactly sound like what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding federalism or a self-limiting currency. Many argue that it’s just bad business to turn over a nation’s currency to a private profession which, for two hundred years, has earned a reputation for ruthlessness, greed and monopoly.

Look, I’m not a banker basher because no profession or special interest group is more or less trustworthy or tyrannical than any other.

Two Governments

The problem is the weakness of human nature. Absolute power will eventually corrupt almost any group of human beings if they’re not bound with the chains of law.

According to Milton Friedman,

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic - - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank . . .”[27]

The Fed claims that transparency might “rattle the financial markets.” Wouldn’t want that to happen, would we? Hell, they’ve been rattling financial markets for a hundred years! Seems I remember some rattling back in 2008.

The Fed also claims that transparency would jeopardize its independence. The Fed’s independence is the problem. The last thing we need is to grant independence to a special interest group which has control of America’s currency. According to Representative Wright Patman,

“In the United States today we have in effect two governments. We have the duly constituted Government . . . Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.” [28]

The Mystery of Banking

Shortly after making this statement, Patman was stripped of his chairmanship. He was “too old,” they said.

The greatest source of the Fed’s power is the ignorance of the American people. To repeat Henry Ford’s historic assessment,

“If the people ever understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning!”

But they don’t understand. There is nothing more boring or confusing in the whole cosmos than money and banking.

The great economist Murray Rothbard wrote a classic book whose title sums it up. It’s called The Mystery of Banking. Even economists don’t understand it. Sure, they understand the mechanics and organization of the system, but not its less obvious but more profound effects on economy and society. As noted economist John Maynard Keynes once said,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch (to corrupt the value of) the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” [29]

Nothing is more secret than the Federal Reserve. Trillions of dollars have been recently borrowed on our signature, but our handlers refuse to provide complete disclosure about who got the money, what they’re doing with it, and why that information isn’t being made available to the people - their own money! The American people are so gentle, forgiving and compliant.

“What a blessing for rulers that men do not think.”
- Adolf Hitler


[1] 1. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The London Connection (Staunton, Virginia: Bankers Research Institute, Jekyll Island Edition, 1991), p.2.
[2] 2. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed (Auburn Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1994) p. 92.
[3] 3. Ibid. at 125.
[4] 4. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of The Federal Reserve, The London Connection, (Staunton, Virginia: Bankers Research Institute, Jekyll Island Edition, 1991), p. 34.
[5] 5. Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed, p.122. (emphasis added).
[6] 6. Ibid. at p. 124.
[7] 7. Ibid at p. 130. (emphasis added).
[8] 8. Ibid. at p. 133.
[9] 9. USA Today, Monday, January 17, 2000, p. B3. (emphasis added).
[10] 10. All definitions are taken from Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003).
[11] 11. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The London Connection , p.57.
[12] 12. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Resesrve (Westlake Village, CA, American Media, 1994), p.227.
[13] 13. Id.
[14] 14. John Reeves, The Rothschilds, as quoted in David Icke, And The Truth Shall Set You Free, (Isle of White: Bridge of Love Publications, 1995), p.43. (emphasis added)
[15] 15. George Conroy, December 16, 1912 issue of “Truth Magazine,” as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87 (emphasis added).
[16] 16. “Money Masters” (DVD) (emphasis added).
[17] 17. Ibid. at p. 159.
[18] 18. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan, An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990), p. 473.
[19] 19. Max Warburg, Memoirs of Max Warburg, Berlin, 1936, as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87. (emphasis added)
[20] 20. David Farrar, The Warburgs, as quoted by Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 87.
[21] 21. What a coincidence that brothers Paul and Max would be at the apex of both German and American banking during the world war and, subsequently, the greatest economic disasters both countries had ever known. In 1919 Max Warburg persuaded the German government to abandon the Goldmark in favor of the “Papiermark.”The Weimar Republic was the German government after World War I. The name “Weimar” then became synonymous with economic ruin through hyperinflation. Starvation became so widespread that “chunks of meat were butchered from the flanks of horses standing at rest in front of their wagons and were either sold or eaten on the spot. At length, with a loaf of bread costing billions of marks, the currency was again made redeemable in gold coin and instantly the stormy seas calmed.”
[22] 22. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p 332.
[23] 23. Ibid at 337 (emphasis added).
[24] 24. Murray Rothbard, The Case Against The Fed, p. 3.
[25] 25. Ibid at p. 5 (emphasis added).
[26] 26. Ibid at p. 133 (emphasis added).
[27] 27. Money Masters (DVD).
[28] 28. A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand, p. 174 (emphasis added)
[29] 29. Lynne Meredith, Vultures In Eagles Clothing, (Huntington Beach, California: Prosperity Publishers, 1994), p. 126. (emphasis added)

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Money

One Court to Rule Them All?

Is The Supreme Court Really Supreme?

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

US Supreme Court


To understand the limitations on the powers of the “Supremes,” you must first understand your own power as the supreme sovereign of the American legal and political system.

Sovereignty is all about knowing who you are, and most of us have forgotten. Fortunately, it is easy to remember by reading a very few words.

Just as a mighty oak tree emerges from a tiny acorn, America’s entire political and legal system (the real one) springs from a single paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. America was born when Thomas Jefferson wrote the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.[1]

Let me boil that down for you. You have God-given rights, and the only purpose of government is to protect these rights. That’s American law in a nutshell.

Notice that these rights are possessed only by the individual. The People as a collective do not have legal rights. Legally, the concept known as “the People” is a fiction, like a forest – only the individual trees are real.

It is the individual who is the supreme sovereign of the American political and legal system. It is the individual who is the source of all governmental authority.


The Obamacare Decision

The founding fathers did not fight a war for independence only to replace one tyrant (King George III) with five more (back then there were only five Supreme Court justices).

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the founders were afraid to endow any branch of government with supreme power.

Their worst fears have been realized. The Nine have become enthroned, and their legal opinions are revered throughout the land.

That wouldn’t be so bad if they were consummately wise and impartial, but the Supremes have become cheerleaders for the Democratic Party. Not all of the justices, and not all of the time; but most of them, when it really matters.

Moreover, the Court has long since abandoned its role as a champion of our founding documents. For example, not a single law of Congress was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1995. Does that sound like a judiciary that defends the Constitution?

How hard can it be to spot unconstitutional executive orders and statutes passed by a President and a Congress that treat the Supreme Law of the Land like road kill?

The Politicization of the Supreme Court

“All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by a virtuous and independent judiciary.” -Andrew Jackson

Sorry, Andrew. That bubble has popped. The Supreme Court has become politically weaponized. It has largely (not completely, but largely) abandoned the rule of law in order to assist in the creation of an authoritarian state.

Consider the “Obamacare” decision.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare," was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's “individual mandate” (requiring individuals to participate in Obamacare) in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.[2]

The majority opinion in that case began well when Chief Justice John Roberts correctly declared that we have a government of limited powers, and Congress can only act when it is expressly and specifically authorized by the Constitution to do so.

Roberts concluded that Congress was not expressly and specifically authorized to require that Americans participate in Obamacare. He points out that the interstate commerce clause enables Congress to regulate existing commerce, but not to require citizens to initiate commerce (by paying healthcare insurance premiums).

The Court therefore ruled that the “individual mandate,” the heart of Obamacare, is therefore unconstitutional. Hallelujah!

Whatever Happened To John Roberts?

However, Roberts then declared that the individual mandate was nonetheless constitutional because it could have been passed as a tax.

No, it couldn’t have. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on imaginary cases.

Consider the rumored dispute between the extraterrestrial humanoid races known as the Klingons and the Romulons. Would a High Court ruling on that case have any force of law? No, because that case doesn’t actually, uh, exist, (and if it did, the Supreme Court does not have any off-planet jurisdiction).

The Court has the power to rule only on the actual/specific case before it, in this case, NFIB v. Sebelius. That case was not a case involving a tax bill. All tax bills (bills for raising revenue) must originate in the House of Representatives, and Obamacare did not. The Court admitted that, and even admitted that Obamacare was not in fact such a bill.

Therefore, Roberts’ conjecture that Obamacare could have been passed as a tax has no force of law. His conjecture and ruling applied to another case, an imaginary case, a case which did not exist -- on this planet, anyway

Also, Roberts had exceeded his judicial authority to the extent that he attempted to amend the Obamacare statute in order to save it. Amendments are legislative functions reserved for Congress. This is a gross violation of the doctrine of separation of powers (between the legislature and the judiciary). The judiciary’s job is to interpret law, not to make law. Therefore, the Court’s opinion is a nullity.

The Sebelius decision is a bizarre departure from the rule of law. However, America does not know that. The People regard the Supreme Court as an infallible priesthood whose rulings become the Supreme Law of the Land.

Not so! Only the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are our Supreme Laws. Judicial opinions can never attain that status.

Anthony Weiner –

Spokesperson For Oscar Meyer

That’s pretty damn unlikely. Even more unlikely is whether, as Chief Justice Roberts claimed, Congress actually could have (honestly and openly) passed Obamacare into law as a tax. No way!

If the American people had been told that the individual mandate was to be a tax, they would have gone ballistic. That kind of tax – a direct tax – would have to be equally apportioned throughout the population. We would have instantly known that everyone would be liable for it.

Instead, we were told that Obamacare was a way to provide insurance only for a particular class of people – the uninsured – and that it was optional for everyone else.

Obamacare was therefore a denial of equal protection because its (alleged) purpose was to provide medical insurance to a certain class – say 20% of the population. The law was overly broad and inclusive because it also applies to the 80% of the population who already had medical insurance and who were therefore denied equal protection by the Obamacare statute.

The creators of Obamacare were careful never to reveal that it was to be enforced as a tax. Until it was passed into law, our alpha male President (the Man Who Will Say Anything) laid down covering fire by daily lying to us (the People Who Will Believe Anything) that our participation was voluntary-not-mandatory and that we could keep our current insurance.

Legislative deception of this magnitude is rare in our history.

Only after Obamacare became law did the American people learn that it was mandatory and that the payment of their insurance premiums would be enforced and collected as a tax by the New Gestapo, the politically weaponized IRS. If the People had known this in advance, Obamacare would never have made it to first base.

Legislator Passes Law “To See What’s In It”

The Progressive “pack” on the Hill did its job by pretending not to know what was in the Obamacare bill. “We’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it,” said Nancy Pelosi.

She lied. She already knew what was in it.

Are we to believe that one who is elected to evaluate and vote on legislation should propose that a bill be passed into law so that she could discover what’s in it?

Well, yes, you should believe that. It happens all the time. The federal legislature is monumentally incompetent.

However, in this case, Ms. Pelosi was also the House Majority Speaker in charge of enacting an historic law which would dramatically advance the Progressive/collectivist agenda.

Nancy Pelosi knew damn well what was in the bill. How could she not? She had a huge staff of legislative assistants who kept her fully informed. So did Barack. Obamacare was his signature legislation.

However, they couldn’t tell you about Obamacare in advance because the bill was such a stinker. So they pretended ignorance. They lied.

The Republican leaders were likely in on the scam. How could they not be? Is it really believable that they knew nothing about the content of a major bill slowly making its way through the House for over a year?

If they didn’t know, then they are corrupt and incompetent. So, whether they knew or didn’t know, they don’t deserve to hold office.

The Supreme Court was also in on the scam. How could it not be?

Our keepers simply could not take the chance that the Court would strike down Obamacare (which was a virtual certainty; it was outrageously unconstitutional). The Progressive movement had staked its reputation (and Obama’s legacy) on Obamacare.

The law was flagrantly illegal, so they had to be assured that the “High” Court would be willing to check the rule of law at the courthouse door in order to somehow put legal lipstick on a legislative pig.

Everyone did his part, and as a result, one sixth of the American economy is now under the control of the Progressive ruling class. As Adolph Hitler said,

“It is not truth that matters, but victory.”

Victory was the real goal. Progressives never gave a damn about providing healthcare. If they did, why isn’t Obamacare fully functioning today – over five years since it became law? That would require a level of sincerity and competence which is completely un-Progressive.

The Progressives’ overarching goal is not to provide service. It’s to increase the size of the federal government “by any means necessary” in order to eventually amass enough power to completely control the social and political order.

By upholding Obamacare, the Supreme Court is sending America a message: Congress can pass any law it wants, even if it is not authorized to do so, even if it violates the Supreme Law of the Land – if the law can be passed as a tax! And if it can, you had better comply or the New Gestapo will make your life miserable.

Under that reasoning, what future law cannot be enforced as a tax? For example, what if congress passed an outrageously unconstitutional law outlawing all firearms? The Court could simply rule that the law could have been passed as a tax.

The Obamacare decision demonstrates why it is folly to regard the Supreme Court as an infallible priesthood. Thomas Jefferson tells us:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

Their maxim is boni judicius est ampliere jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[3]


Relativism -- The War on Truth

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – no more, no less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is to be master – that is all.”[4]

How can it be that the High Court has fallen so low and that the rule of law has become the rule of (nine) men and women? I’ll give you a one-word answer: relativism – the core of the ideology of the Hard Left.

Relativism is the view that all truth is relative to the observer and his environment, having no connection to a permanent realm of virtue and morality.

Barack Obama is the ultimate relativist, as was his mentor, Saul Alinsky, who tells us that a community

“organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.[5]

[T]he free society organizer is loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations our society presents.”[6]

Progressivism regards truth, morality and law as “shackles of dogma.”

These people are absolutely bound to the material world. Matter is all they know and believe in, because it’s all they have experienced, all they can comprehend at their current level of consciousness.

The material world is always changing. Nothing is permanent in that world. Nothing.

This is why animal-dominated individuals (most of humanity) have such profound disrespect for principles, values, religion and the rule of law. They see those things as merely the result of an individual’s or a society’s ever-changing opinion or point of view, and one is as valid as another.

The animal ego revels in the absence of restraints, like law and morality. Our animal nature is concerned only with the immediate satisfaction of its personal self-interest.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. – Pope Benedict XVI.

Animal consciousness is not evil. It is simply immature. The Animal Left cannot yet comprehend a reality which is independent of time and space. The collective mind is not yet strong enough to assume responsibility for individual sovereignty and decision making, and alpha male leadership is always waiting in the wings.

Legal Relativism -- The War On The Rule Of Law

“A constitution should be short and obscure.”

-- Napoleon Bonaparte

During the twentieth century, relativism has increasingly infested the American legal system.

To legal relativists there is no such thing as a higher and superior system of law. For them the U.S. Constitution was the creation of eighteenth century sod busters. Their primitive legal system was just perfect for a wilderness society, but not for us “moderns.”

The Constitution is viewed by the Left as a “living” document which must be re-interpreted when new circumstances arise. In the opinion of today’s judiciary, the Constitution no longer contains truths and principles which spring from a permanent realm of virtue, supportive of all life. All laws are simply “relative” to their ever-changing context.

Many advocate that the Constitution be amended, or even repealed.

What’s the point? Relativist judges are already interpreting the Constitution in such a way that, for all practical purposes, it no longer exists. It has already been repealed -- by (mis)interpretation or by those who simply ignore it. I am reminded of an old lawyer saying: “The law is in the judge’s law.”

For example, the Supreme Law of the Land, which the 50 states have agreed to obey and defend, specifically requires each state to have a militia.

Judges today tell us that the militia requirement of the Second Amendment needn’t be enforced. Why not? Because there are no state militia anymore.

Follow the logic. All you have to do to amend/subvert the Constitution is to disobey it. Apparently, disobedience is one of those “changing conditions” to which law must be responsive.

Also, the Second Amendment declares that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Applying the above logic, if all guns are confiscated, then the right to keep and bear them cannot possibly be infringed because there are no more guns to keep and bear.

Relativists argue that the right to bear arms changes with the circumstances, and that guns were appropriate for the frontier, not for today’s big cities. After all, when was the last time you had to shoot a squirrel at Times Square for your supper?”

Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.

Monetary Relativism

The same argument applies to the gold-as-legal-tender requirement. It’s no longer a requirement because the states aren’t actually using gold and silver as legal tender. So, the legal tender law is no longer needed because no one is complying with it.

Also, gold may have been okay for Davey Crockett, but it’s so heavy and cumbersome, you know.

Instead, we have a “fiat” currency, a currency established by government fiat. Fiat means “because I say so.” It is a currency imposed by decree, by force, by “fiat” -- even if that fiat currency is not only unauthorized but is specifically prohibited (“No state shall “emit bills of credit.”)

Relativist judges wear the chains of the Constitution lightly. They really believe that the ban on unbacked paper money (Federal Reserve Notes) no longer applies because … we are using unbacked paper money. After all, why should law interfere with monetary reality, even if it is illegal? Indeed, why should law be concerned with illegality at all? Illegality is therefore acceptable … because it exists.

Therefore, the Constitution doesn’t have to be enforced -- if it’s being violated. Violations are merely new circumstances which courts must accommodate.

Banking Relativism

Also, the feds no longer have to worry about monetary illegality because they have cleverly given the money power to a private entity (the Fed) and THEY are the ones burning up the printing presses.

Government is forbidden to create paper money, so they got a private bank to create it, and then they borrowed the money from the bank. The government didn’t issue the money; they merely borrowed it.

The Federal Reserve is America’s central bank. The Fed was created by an act of Congress. It’s even called “federal” to make it sound official and respectable. However, the Fed is a private bank because it issues stock, and the stock is owned by other privately owned banks, like Citigroup. The Fed is owned by the largest commercial banks in the country.

So, by creating a private central bank (the Fed) there was enough distance between the government and the bank for the government to disavow government involvement in the creation of the money supply.

I am reminded of the sleazy lawyer on Saturday Night Live who was so fond of saying, “It’s not me. It’s them, isn’t it? It’s not me. I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything. It was them. Not me. Them.” (“Me,” of course, is the federal government, and “them” is the Federal Reserve.)

“One may not do indirectly that which is prohibited directly.”[7]

The Constitution requires that “no State shall use any Thing but gold and silver Coin” as legal tender. Loophole sharpshooters say that this doesn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government is not a state.

Rubbish!! It is absurd to suggest that the Constitution permits a separate federal currency. It requires the states to use only gold and silver coin. Does that impliedly authorize the federal government to use another form of currency, one which specifically forbidden (“bills of credit,” i.e., paper currency, i.e., FRNs)?

The Constitution of the United States of America is not just a noble resolution and statement of national purpose. It is the law. Actually, it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

To interpret a law you look to the plain meaning of its words. If the meaning is still in doubt, the intent of the legislators who passed the law will decide the issue, and the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding money is clear.

The Fathers wanted the state and federal governments to stay completely the hell out of the money business. The power to coin money is not the power to print unbacked paper money, but to strike into coin precious metals occasionally brought by the people to the U.S. Mint.

Occasionally, there is a need for a whole lot of currency “right now,” e.g., to mobilize for war. Conceivably, under martial law, the government might (unconstitutionally) print money, but for a limited time and purpose only. When peace returns, so should the Constitution.

If you don’t like what the Constitution says, then amend it. That’s been done twenty-seven times, and that’s perfectly legal. If you don’t amend it, obey it. However, to obey it, you first have to know what the Constitution says. Most people have no idea because they’ve never even read it.

I wonder if the nine justices on the Supreme Court have ever read the Constitution from top to bottom. I’m serious!! How do you go from constitutionally mandated gold and silver coin to a forbidden paper currency and still have a federal judiciary, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America that can look itself in the mirror?


A Government of Laws or Men?

The Supreme Court believes that “the law is in the judge’s jaw.” For example, Justice Thurgood Marshall once said “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Justice Arthur Goldberg said that his goal was to achieve “what is the just result.” [8]

Bullfeathers! Your job is not to channel or create or divine what you feel is right or just. Your job is to compare the facts of a case to the Constitution as written and as intended by the Founding Fathers. The law is not in your jaw or in the jaw of your Higher Self.

Because we rely so heavily on the federal judicial system to tell us what’s constitutional, Americans have forgotten their roots. Even our Senators and Congressmen know little about our founding documents and principles. Today I heard a reporter ask a U.S. Senator about the Constitutionality of the bailout legislation, and he begged off by saying “I’m not a lawyer.” That’s pathetic. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he doesn’t know what it says?

Most of the media wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if it ran up and bit them on their press cards. That’s why the servile press never questions what is handed down by the Supremes. One is reminded of feeding time at the seal and walrus pool at the zoo.

The Constitution isn’t complicated. It’s not over your pretty little head! We no longer have the luxury of deferring to legal “experts.” The expertise of others is what got us into this mess.

Is Judicial Review Constitutional?

We look to the Supreme Court to tell us about the most fundamental context of American jurisprudence because we actually believe that the Court has the final say on the subject. Judicial supremacy is a myth which was conjured up by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

Marshall preposterously ruled in that case that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and that its opinions, because they enjoy the same status as the Constitution itself, are binding on all departments of state and federal government pursuant to the supremacy clause.

Actually that clause confers supremacy status only on federal laws, and judicial decisions are not laws. They are interpretations of laws.

Judicial supremacy seems to presume judicial infallibility. Of course, this would mean that the Supreme Court could never commit tyranny or treason if its opinions are the supreme law of the land.

One Justice Was A Klan Member

How can human beings be infallible? Indeed, several justices were clearly mentally incompetent. Some were flagrantly racist and anti-Semitic. Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and justice James C. McReynolds . . .

“refused to stand next to Justice Lewis Brandeis, the Court’s first Jewish justice. He would leave the room whenever Brandeis would speak in conference. He was also openly hostile toward the second Jewish justice Benjamin Cardozo. “He often held a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench on opinion day.” [9]

Do you regard these men as “infallible”?

How infallible is a Supreme Court which has approved an act of Congress (creating the Federal Reserve) that gave the right to create money (which right Congress did not have) to a private bank (which none of Congress’ 18 powers permitted), authorizing the creation of money in a form which the Constitution specifically forbids? I am reminded of Edwin Vieira’s recent comment:

“But if the principle that any thinking American can reject a decision of the Supreme Court that fails to square with the Constitution applies to any case, it applies to every case. The greater the stupidity of the decision simply increases the speed with which the reader recognizes its unconstitutionality.” [10]

Largely, the nation’s response to John Marshall’s power grab was to simply ignore it. The states and the other federal departments regarded his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison as just that – his opinion. As Andrew Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”[11]

Like most of America in 1819, Andy was aware of the precise legal authority of the Supreme Court. In response to the Court’s ruling in McCullough vs. Maryland,[12] Andrew Jackson, an old war horse (not a lawyer) wrote the most sublime description of the limits of judicial authority in the history of American jurisprudence.

“Mere [judicial] precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled . . .

[T]he opinion of the Supreme Court . . . ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive . . . , but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.”[13]

The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Is Just That

Thomas Jefferson, no less an authority on judicial power, said that “whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.” [14] He also added:

“The Constitution intended that the three great branches of the government should be coordinate and independent

of each other. As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it is given no control to another branch . . it did not intend to give the judiciary . . . control over the executive . . . . I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury vs. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law.”[15]

Abraham Lincoln tells us that

“the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” [16]

The Founding Fathers intended that the legislative, executive and judicial branches be equal in their ability to interpret the Constitution, and to act accordingly within their respective departments. Indeed, each had taken an oath to do so. The Fathers did not intend that one branch have veto power over the others, i.e., the final word on what the Constitution really means.

“[T]he purpose of this division was, not merely to divvy up the chores, but to balance one branch against the other. The goal was not to make government efficient but to deliberately make it inefficient. Each president and each legislator is morally bound even by oath, to uphold the Constitution. If each of them does not have the power to decide in conscience what is constitutional, then taking an oath to uphold it has little meaning.”[17]

Regarding the McCullough case, Jefferson added the following:

“My construction of the Constitution is that each department [branch of government] is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”[18]

If the President and Congress enjoyed freedom from judicial supremacy, then the creator of the entire federal government -- the states -- should feel even less bound.

A typical response to the McCullough decision at the state level was made by the Ohio legislature which declared that “we are aware of the doctrine, that Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, the true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine . . . [we] can never give [our] assent.” [19]

Thomas DiLorenzo tells us:

“Common sense suggests that it would have been the height of absurdity for the Founding Fathers to fight a revolution in the name of liberty and then turn around and write a constitution that placed everyone’s liberty in the hands of five government lawyers with lifetime tenure. [20]

Yes, such a thing as “judicial review” of the constitutionality of federal legislation existed. But until the end of the War Between the States, it was considered by many Americans to be merely the opinion of the Supreme Court and did not necessarily carry more weight than the opinions of the President, the Congress, or the citizens of the sovereign states.”[21]

Making Up The Law

The most prominent feature of the doctrine of judicial supremacy is its arrogance. The doctrine maintains that the judicial branch is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, even though there is nothing in that document which gives the Supreme Court that authority. Further, the doctrine of judicial supremacy maintains that the Court’s opinions ascend to the same status as the Constitution itself -- that is, they become the Constitution.

However, judicial opinions are not law. Only federal laws may become the “supreme law of the land” pursuant to the supremacy clause. In the entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, a judicial decision has never been considered to be a law. Law is the product of legislation. Law is what judges interpret. It is therefore impossible for Supreme Court opinions to be the supreme law of the land.

Judicial supremacy further maintains that, not only does the Court have the final say on interpreting law; the judiciary may also create law. Consider once more the breathtaking arrogance of Thurgood Marshall.

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” [22]

Judicial activism (legislation/creation of law by a court) is a usurpation of popular sovereignty. Only the people have the authority to create law in this country, and they confer that power on “legislators,” whom they elect for that purpose. Federal judges are not elected; they are appointed, and they are appointed for a purpose other than legislating.

The Supreme Court itself has declared that “the power to enact carries with it the final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation.” Proper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949).

It is the People who have the power to enact, albeit through their elected representatives. Therefore, the unelected Supreme Court cannot be the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The “living Constitution” is a fantasy of activist judicial legislators who seek to increase their power and prestige by illegally substituting their own personal opinions for the only legal mechanism for altering the Constitution -- the amendment process, a process they find cumbersome and inconvenient. Sorry about that.

Judicial decisions are not laws because they are by definition interpretations of laws. If unconstitutional laws are void, the same reasoning applies with greater force to unconstitutional acts of the judiciary. Those acts have no effect because they have no existence.

Supreme Court decisions (indeed, all judicial decisions) are meant to be supreme over no one. Over the past 200 years this understanding has been gradually eroded by our legal profession -- case by case, on little cat feet -- as that profession ascended the pyramid of power to join our current financial and political overlords in the penthouse of power.

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away,

for expedience and by parts.”

-Edmund Burke

The appropriate rule of construction for interpreting the Constitution is the “original intent” of its legislators. Interpretation is not a matter of personal preference. It is a matter of law. There aren’t any other legal rules of construction that (legally) apply to this subject.

“Original intent” (also known as “original meaning”) was the legal rule of construction used in 1787 and which therefore must be used today. It does not refer to the original intent of the founding fathers themselves but of “a typical educated American conversant with Anglo-American law in the late 1700s.” [23]

The People Are the Supreme Court

The American People have a right to defend themselves against tyranny by their government. Our national birth certificate (the Declaration of Independence) declares that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” Indeed, not only is it their right, “it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

The right to abolish an entire government includes the lesser right to alter it, i.e.,

“to condemn and set aside the mere statutes, judicial opinions and other purported public acts of tyrants or usurpers - and to condemn and set aside the tyrants and usurpers themselves - without “alter[ing] or abolish[ing]” the basic institutions of government.”[24]

Edwin Vieira has four degrees from Harvard (A.B., M.A., J.D., and PhD.), but he’s not an egghead. [I know he will be glad to hear that.] Dr. Vieira is a great constitutional lawyer whose specialty is monetary law and its history. The following is the conclusion of a speech he gave on March 25, 2003, to the Rotary Club of New York at the Princeton Club.

“Well, Americans would have to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “We The People.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We The People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States;” not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the People. We The People are the principals.

The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. . . . [Blackstone] wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.

‘We the People’ are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters . . . There is a very simple reason for that. There’s no one else. Therefore, here’s the bad news: it ultimately is your responsibility to find out what your Constitution means with respect to monetary powers and disabilities, and then to do something about it, before history takes the opportunity out of your hands and we all suffer the consequences. Thank you.”[25]


  1. (my emphasis)
  2. 57 U.S.__(2012), 122 S. Ct. 2566.
  3. The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1983), p. 498 (emphasis added).
  4. Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, as quoted in Roger Sayles’ From Sovereign To Serf, Government By The Treachery and Deception of Words (2011) p. 63.
  5. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York, Vintage Books, 1971) pp.10-11.
  6. Ibid at p.11.
  7. -old legal maxim.
  8. Mark R. Levin, Liberty a2216 Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto , p. 39.
  9. Mark R. Levin, Men In Black, p. 4..
  10. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, (San Antonio: Vision Forum Ministries) p. 178-9.
  11. at p. 89 (emphasis added)
  12. This case declared the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, the central banking predecessor of the Federal Reserve decision.
  13. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, pp 220-221 (emphasis added).
  14. at p. 223.
  15. The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 497.
  16. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, p. 222.
  17. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 349 (emphasis added).
  18. The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1983), p. 498.
  19. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse, How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution, and What it Means for Americans Today New York: Crown Forum, 2008), p. 65.
  20. Ibid at 80.
  21. Ibid at 65.
  22. Mark R. Levin, Men In Black, p. 17.
  23. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, p. 66.
  24. Ibid at p. 94.
  25. As quoted by the author in his 2012 article, “Monetary Terrorism,” pp. 60-61.
  26. It is so interesting that the values of high and low levels of consciousness are inverted/reversed/opposed. An atheist would substitute the word “religious” for the word “atheist” in this paragraph. He would also substitute the word “Capitalism” for “Communism.”
  27. Transcendent – to be above and independent of (the universe, space, time, etc.) Immanent – remaining within; indwelling; inherent; indwelling (the universe, time, etc.); immanentism: the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
  28. Helen Keller, “Shining Soul: Helen Keller’s Spiritual Life and Legacy” (DVD).
  29. Mark Levin, Liberty & Tyranny, (New York, Threshold Editions, 2009), 27.
  30. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p. 62.
  31. “Thomas Jefferson, A Film by Ken Burns” (DVD).
  32. Webster Adams, Citizens Rulebook (Phoenix, AZ: Whitten Printers, 2002), p.1
  33. Brandon Smith (
  34. David Bohm, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 5 (1975).
  35. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, (Boston, Ark Paperbacks, 1983) p. 48.
  36. Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That.
  37. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie,” DVD (1995).
  38. John Hagelin, Manual For A Perfect Government. (Fairfield, Iowa: MIU Press, 1998) .
  39. Ibid at p. 37.
  40. Deepak Chopra, as quoted in “God and Buddha, A Dialogue With Robert Thurman” (DVD).
  41. David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005) , p. 6
  42. Iben-Al Arabi, a twelfth century Sufi mystic.
  43. John 14:12.
  44. David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005), p. 8.
  45. Muhammad uttered that sublime statement while he was still in Mecca. At that time he was a very high being, but he crashed and burned when he moved to Medina. The Fall of Muhammad was the greatest spiritual tragedy in history.

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Supreme Court

Brave New Money: Bitcoin: The New Gold?

A New Monetary System?

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

Brave New Money

The founding fathers’ primary goal was to create a decentralized society. They wanted to avoid giving too much power to the central (federal) government.

That’s why the Constitution declares that “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

As a result, during the nineteenth century monetary transactions were private, peer-to-peer, and completely decentralized. No government agency or bank or other third-party recordkeeper was involved.

Today we have a completely centralized (and therefore spectacularly illegal) currency created and regulated by the Federal Reserve and its co-conspirator, the United States Treasury.

The states have lost their way. They have become administrative units of the federal government, like counties are to a state. Not only does no state mandate gold and silver coin as legal tender, all of them prohibit the use of gold and silver as legal tender.

It gets even worse. The Constitution declares that “No State … shall emit Bills of Credit.” Federal Reserve Notes (the money in your pocket) are bills of credit. Therefore, America has a national currency specifically outlawed by the Constitution.

As a result, the dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since the Fed was created in 1913, and America has an unpayable National Debt (which doubled in the Obama administration) totaling 21 trillion dollars.

The only way to right the financial ship of state is to create a wall of separation between money and government. In other words, get the federal government and its banking system the hell out of the money business. Return America’s money to the People.
OK, that’s fine, but what form of money would be best? A quick answer is “Gold, of course!”

But is gold the right answer?
Gold is great. However, there are some new monetary kids on the block -- cryptocurrencies -- which have a lot in common with gold. A cryptocurrency is digital cash -- computer-generated money. Bitcoin is the most successful and widely known cryptocurrency. It has the best chance of succeeding as America’s money because of the following:

1) Just like gold, Bitcoin transactions are completely private, decentralized and peer-to-peer. No bank or other third party is necessary for verification or record keeping. Again, all money, no bank.

2) Just like gold, Bitcoin can’t be inflated. It is not possible to create more than 21 million Bitcoins.

3) Just like gold, Bitcoin can’t be hacked, counterfeited or double-spent. Encryption techniques in Bitcoin’s algorithm completely control how the coins are created and used, and all transactions are verifiable by computer systems all over the world.

4) Unlike gold, Bitcoin is convenient. Gold is inconvenient. Who wants to lug around super-expensive rocks? If you are savvy enough to send an email or swipe a credit card, you can buy something with Bitcoin. It’s that easy.

5) Bitcoin has been a better investment than gold -- which has been a great investment in its own right. Since 1971 gold has increased in value approximately 3500% (versus 2100% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average). Bitcoin’s price has skyrocketed from one dollar in 2009 to $6500 today (10/1//2018), an increase of 724,000%. Even with Bitcoin’s “crash” from $19,000 in December 2017 it has increased in value about $700% over the past 18 months.

6) Unlike gold, Bitcoin is volatile. It is experiencing the uncertainty that attends emerging technologies and asset classes. Remember the jaw-dropping volatility of Apple, Google and Amazon in the 1990s? Backing bitcoins with a familiar, established and stable commodity like gold would provide price stability until cryptocurrencies gained wider acceptance.

The rise of Bitcoin is the most important development in the history of money since the use of gold became widespread thousands of years ago. However, in order to understand and properly evaluate Bitcoin, one must have a good basic understanding of the monetary system it seeks to replace. The remainder of this chapter will provide that perspective.

Monetary Dynamite

“The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea.  I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question.  The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong and that the wrong somehow centers in money.”[1]  --   Thomas Edison

What?  There’s a “money question”?

What’s wrong with our money?  Maybe Thomas Jefferson knows.  He tells us:

Specie [gold and silver coin] is the perfect medium because it will preserve its own level, because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands.[2]

Edison and Jefferson were arguing against a form of paper money (like the money in your pocket) which is not backed/not redeemable by anything of intrinsic and stable value, and which is dying in our hands.

Yeah, I know how strong the dollar has been in the past few years, but you have to look at the big picture.

Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (in large part to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar), the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 97%.  That trend will not be reversed -- until Bigfoot rides a unicorn down Broadway.

You could buy a dozen eggs for 6 cents in 1900, but today they’ll cost you $2.00. Today’s $100,000 house could have been bought for $3000 back then.

Gold has performed much better than the dollar.  An ounce of gold was worth $18.96 in 1900.  Today it’s worth $1309.00, an increase of over 6900%.  In stock market language, that’s a “69-bagger.”

That is why J.P. Morgan, the best known banker in American history, famously proclaimed that

      “Money is gold and nothing else!”[3]

Why would he say that?   The conventional wisdom today is that gold, an eighteenth century relic, has little value as money.

However, at the lower right hand corner of your CNB and Fox Business television screens, a notice appears every 20 seconds announcing the … price of gold.

Why do they do that?  Alan knows why.

Alan Greenspan, a legendary banker in his own right, said (in November of 2014) that “gold is a currency.  It is still, by all evidence, the premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.”[4]

Why would he say that?  Because money is gold and nothing else!  When some other form of money comes along that works better, let me know.  I’ll be impressed.

The proof is in the pudding.  Our debt-based and inflationary money and banking system is destroying our currency.  The U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.  Ironically, the Fed was created largely to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar!

Meanwhile gold has appreciated over 1700% since 1913.  The dollar is down 97%, and gold is up 1700%.  Do the math.  Get back to me.

Inflation Is Theft

Alan Greenspan is an honorable man.  For a long while I didn’t believe that.  When he became chairman of the Federal Reserve he relegated gold to the back of the bus.  Since his retirement his real views on gold have resurfaced.  Those views were first made known by Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which she included the following quote from Greenspan.  Forgive the length of the quote, but it is rich.

“In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.  There is no safe store of value.  If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done [when the public’s gold was confiscated in 1933] . . .

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold.  Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.

Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.  It stands as a protector of property rights.  If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

Gold and economic freedom are inseparable.”

That is why the founding fathers enacted Section 9 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that:

“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver  Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Today, however, no state makes gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts, and every state uses a paper currency in a form which the Constitution specifically forbids (bills of credit – those Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket).

The problem is not paper money per se.  America has always had paper money, but not paper money which is not (at least partially) redeemable in gold and silver coin.

According to the Supreme Law of the Land, you must be able to exchange your paper money for gold or silver any time you want.  And you can’t.

The founders intended to prevent the government from creating more paper than it has gold and silver.  They wanted to prevent the kind of inflation that ruined the currency issued by the Continental Congress (before the Constitution was enacted).  Remember the old expression “not worth a Continental?”

The advantage of legal money (gold and silver) is 1) that it is money in the hands of the People, not in a Federal Reserve-controlled bank, and, 2) "it can never die in our hands” through inflation, and 3) it’s legal.

Gold and the New International Monetary System

I know, I know.  Gold has lost its luster over the last few years.  It has shed more than a third of its value (in dollars) since 2011, but you have to look at the big picture.  The central banks and governments of the world certainly do.  Even while they bad- mouth gold, they are scrambling to buy as much of it as possible.

China, India and Russia act like Dyson vacuum cleaners around gold.  It’s easier for the sun to sneak by a rooster than for an ounce of gold to make it past Vladimir Putin.

Also, consider the almost daily news that many countries of all sizes and stripes (notably Germany, Venezuela, Switzerland, Mexico and the Netherlands) are desperately trying to repatriate their gold from foreign depositories.

Why? Because most countries recognize that the major economies and currencies of the world are extremely unstable.  For example, the recent crash (50% decline) in the price of oil is wrecking the economies and currencies of oil-producing nations.

Also, the world economy is on the verge of collapsing into a recession.  Many argue that we have been in a depression since 2008, but that fraudulent statistics and central bank money printing have just papered it over.

A stock market collapse could easily be precipitated by derivatives.  “The gross size of all bank derivatives positions now exceeds $650 trillion, more than 9 times global GDP.”[5]

Our economy is like a car which has square wheels.  The wheels are our destructive monetary system (an unbacked, debt-based fiat currency created by a fractional reserve banking system).   The rough ride is shaking the car to pieces by creating 1) more and more extreme booms and busts, 2) a stalled economy and 3) an unpayable National Debt.  This is not part of the original Master Plan for America’s money.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” - Vladimir Lenin

Money is gold because only gold maintains its value and preserves its purchasing power. The political and financial ruling class hates constitutional coin because it can’t be digitally created, destroyed, inflated, deflated or confiscated.

Gold and silver are money in the hands of the people, a state of affairs, which it is the purpose of the Federal Reserve to prevent.

In any case, we may not have to worry about our money much longer.  Our handlers are designing a new international monetary system in which the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency, and I would be stunned if it were not introduced before Barack Obama leaves the White House.

But I’m getting ahead of my story.

Why the Fed Desperately Tries to Create Inflation

 There is a global war between the forces of inflation and deflation.  The world’s central banks are trying to prevent market crashes by inflating their currencies.  In other words they are fighting deflation with inflation.

“The causes of declining confidence in the dollar are the dual specter of inflation and deflation, the perception on the part of many that the dollar is no longer a store of value but a lottery ticket, potentially worth far more, or far less, than face value for reasons beyond the holder’s control.[6]

A standoff in the battle between deflation and inflation does not mean that price stability prevails.  The opposing forces may have neutralized each other for the time being, but neither has gone away.  Collapsing growth in China and a reemergence of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe could give deflation the upper hand.  Conversely, a war in the Middle East followed by a commodity price shock, surging oil prices, and panicked gold buying could cause dollar dumping and an inflationary groundswell that the Fed would be unable to contain.  Either extreme is possible.”[7]

The Federal Reserve has pumped more than $3 trillion into the economy over the last few years in order to create an (alleged) annual rate of inflation of 2-3%.

1) Inflation makes it easier for the government to pay its debts, notably the National Debt, now in excess of $18 trillion.  Three per cent inflation will cut in half the real cost of (and the burden of paying) the National Debt every 20 years.

“Deflation increases the real value of government debt, making it harder to repay.  If deflation is not reversed, there will be an outright default on the national debt, rather than the less traumatic outcome of default-by-inflation.  Deflation slows nominal GDP growth, while nominal debt rises every year due to budget deficits.  This tends to increase the debt-to-GDP ratio [now approximately 105%], placing the United States on the same path as Greece and making a sovereign debt crisis more likely.”[8]

The FED fears deflation because deflation increases strengthens the dollar, which in turn makes it more expensive to borrow more of them. If it’s easier for the government to pay the interest on our National Debt, it is less urgent for spending to be restrained and for the National Debt to be limited.

2) Also, deflation increases the burden of servicing private debt, resulting in defaults on loans and a blizzard of bankruptcies.

“These losses then fall on the banks, causing a banking crisis.  Since the primary mandate of the Federal Reserve is to prop up the banking system, deflation must be avoided because it induces bad debts that threaten bank solvency.”[9]

3) Once deflation gains momentum, it is nearly impossible for the Fed to reverse.  Rickards maintains that if it gets out of hand,

“the only way to break deflation is for the United States to declare by executive order that gold’s price is, say, $7,000 per ounce, possibly higher.”[10]

Rickards predicts this would inflate the price of everything else, e.g., $400 per barrel oil and $100 per ounce silver.

So, strangely, both runaway inflation and runaway deflation will result in a skyrocketing gold price, and will probably have the same effect on the price of gold.

The Fed has been fighting the forces of deflation unleashed by the recent Great Recession by pumping more than $3 trillion into the economy.  It is unclear whether a depression or hyperinflation will ensue, but one thing is very clear – the dollar and the international monetary system (which is based on the dollar) will collapse, not for economic but for political reasons.

Inflation is unexpectedly   partly because the banks aren’t lending. Interest rates are so low that it’s safer and more profitable for them to leave their money with the Federal Reserve. The economic stimulus programs benefit only the financial elite.

The “Consumer Spending” Scam

Also, inflation remains low because Americans aren’t spending much of what they have.  The government says it’s trying to increase consumer spending to support both inflation and economic growth.  Bullroar!

If the government were serious about increasing consumer spending, it could have given the People a small portion of what it routinely steals or squanders.

For example, instead of spending $650 million on an Obamacare website that doesn’t work, Obama could have just given that money to the American people.  That’s two million thirty-one thousand two hundred and fifty-one dollars for each and every man, woman and child in the US! 

The same goes for Obama’s $550 million “investment” in Solyndra, the solar company that went belly-up.  If the money had simply been given to the People, every human being in the U.S. would have received a check for one million, seven hundred eighteen thousand and seventy five dollars.

Consumer spending would have skyrocketed, driving a stake in the heart of deflation and ending the ongoing Great Recession.

However, such a gift would have made the People independently wealthy, a worst case scenario from a tyrant’s perspective.  Obama would rather piss the money away than empower the populace.

Instead, the top five banks, whose combined assets equal the entire annual economic output of the entire country (over $17 trillion), just got a little fatter.

(By the way, the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to be in the “investment” business.  Can you think of a more inept or corrupt investor?)


 Money As A Weapon

The war between inflation and deflation is occurring in a political context.  Barack Obama and the Global Left want a weaker America.

Let’s do the math.  Behind door #1 is deflation.  Deflation strengthens both the dollar and America.  Behind door #2 is inflation.  Inflation weakens the dollar and America.  Gee, which door is an America-hating dirtbag going to open?

The central banks of the world and their lapdog governments want to weaken and downsize America so that she will be easier to control and will fit more easily into a world government with a globally unified economy.

The best way to accomplish this monetarily is to create a weaker dollar, i.e., to create inflation.  Market collapses and depressions are deflationary, and deflation strengthens the dollar and its position as the world’s reserve currency.

Most of the nations of the world are trying to destroy the dollar reserve currency status because they perceive America as an imperial power.  They (and America’s own leaders) are only too happy to bring her down a few notches.

The major countries are trying to protect themselves from the coming collapse of the dollar, because that will destroy the international monetary system, whose foundation is … the dollar.

They are protecting themselves by creating regional governments with regional currencies.  The European Union’s euro and the Russian Federation’s ruble are recent examples.

The United States of Islam?

Another such regional government is being created in the Middle East.  Obama is doing his part by aiding and abetting terrorist “freedom fighters” (like the Islamic Brotherhood, the Taliban, Iran, Hamas, ISIS, etc.) In other words, he’s helping them to create a Muslim Caliphate.

Terrorism is financed by nations with very deep pockets, like Saudi Arabia, a very dubious “ally” of the U.S. (16 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi).

The Saudis and their friends are now trying to create a regional currency with Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Jordan (collectively called the Gulf Cooperation Council – the GCC).  I would not be surprised to see membership eventually extended to the newly created Islamic State (ISIS).

The GCC is even considering pricing their oil exports in its own currency.  This would greatly reduce the demand for dollars as a means of payment in international transactions, resulting in tremendous inflation in the United States.

Even more likely is an alliance between Russia, Syria and Iran which could dictate terms to Saudi Arabia regarding the above mentioned Caliphate and the nature of its currency.

(I was surprised to learn that the Koran regards only gold and silver as legal money.)

The United States of North America?

May I also call your attention to attempts to create a regional government and currency in our neck of the woods?

The commotion on our Southern border is in part a smoke screen for the possible creation of the United States of North America, a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada into an American Union, with its own currency, the “amero.”

As always, standing in the way of any union is the American gorilla.  The main challenge for the elite has been to weaken the United States so that she can be easily absorbed into a larger collective.

However, America’s Achilles heel may be her money.  The dollar has been largely destroyed by de-linking it from gold and silver, resulting in a hundred year program of continual inflation.  Its recent strength (seen in plunging oil and gold prices) is transitory.

The weakness of a currency can be seen in the ratio of its national debt (ours is $19 trillion) to its GDP (ours is 17.6 trillion) … 104%.

Actually, the total U.S. debt (including unfunded liabilities) is 61.2 trillion.  Therefore the ratio is 347%.

Some argue that the destruction of the dollar is yet another example of Problem-Reaction-Solution.  A problem is created (the prospect of a dollar collapse) which gets the usual reaction (“Something must be done!”) and the social engineers then pose the solution for which they created the problem in the first place – a currency switch.

“While the immediate reaction of most Americans would be that the idea is preposterous, as we learned in 9/11, unanticipated crises can cause otherwise unimaginable changes in national policy.  A severe financial crisis, such as the impending devaluation of the dollar, could serve as a catalyst to make the amero a more acceptable idea.  If the alternative were to continue with the dramatically declining dollar or to move to a new currency that would compete strongly in world markets, Americans may be surprisingly ready to accept the amero.” [11]

Perhaps the greatest immediate danger to the dollar lies in the board rooms of foreign central banks and finance ministers.  The dollar now makes up about two-thirds of the reserve currencies of the world’s central banks.  These banks (mainly China and Japan) also hold about half of our National Debt.

The North American Union movement is an entire covert industry, sanctioned and supported by rogue elements within our own government, financed by multinational corporations and committed to the destruction of American sovereignty.

This movement has its counterparts in the African and Asian Union movements, each with its own currency, the afro (I kid you not) and the asio.

Until his recent death, the proposed leader of the African Union was Mohammar Gadhaffi!  You can see that these currency schemes are strictly top drawer.

You will be amazed how many monetary union movements there are in the world.  Just Google the key words.  Start with, say, “South American monetary union,” or “Middle Eastern monetary union.”  Pick any region of the world.

The movement to admit Puerto Rico as our 51st state may be a prelude to an American Union.  Puerto Rico statehood would make America more receptive to the admission of other Latin nations.  “Hey, how about Mexico?

[The remainder of this article is under construction.]



  1. Roger S. Sayles, From Sovereign To Serf, Government By The Treachery and Deception of Words195.
  2. Andrew M. Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 2009), p. 551-2.
  3. As quoted by James G. Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, Penguin, 2014) p. 220.
  4. Tyler Durden,, November 7, 2014.
  5. Rickards, The Death of Money, p. 11
  6. Ibid at p. 256
  7. Ibid at p. 249.
  8. James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),
  9. Id.
  10. Rickards, The Death of Money, p. 10.
  11. James R. Corsi, The Late, Great USA, James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),  9..
  12. James Rickards, The Death of Money, The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System (New York, The Penguin Group, 2014),  279.

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Money

Your Duty to Bear Arms

The Hidden Meaning Of The Second Amendment

Montfort S. Ray, J.D

Bear Arms

Largely taken from Legal Dynamite, this article will reveal the original meaning of the Second Amendment, buried by 200 years of misinterpretation and obfuscation. The real meaning is in plain sight. Can you see it?

“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.”

Of course you can’t see it! You’ve been conditioned not to. If you’re willing, I can help with your deprogramming.

The explosive information herein is precious and timely because our government is either incapable or unwilling to protect us from terrorism (or even from crime generally, for that matter). Indeed, it seems more interested in disarming us.

Let us begin with a statement from a beloved patriot and founding father.


The Sword

“Let Mr. Madison tell me, when did Liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.” -- Patrick Henry

There is no question that we have lost the purse. What about the sword?

A careful reading of the Second Amendment shows that the founders believed that the People and their states should bear primary responsibility for defending the nation and enforcing the Rule of Law.

I said a “careful” reading! Most of us truly believe that the Second Amendment says only that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

It does not say that! That’s only half of the story. The right to bear arms cannot be legally interpreted and understood without reference to the other words in that amendment.

The Second Amendment really says that “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.”

Don’t you think it’s strange that the only attention ever paid to this amendment (by both gun rights and gun control advocates) focuses only on the right to bear arms?

In the Constitution “no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added.”[i] However, nothing is ever said about the first part of the amendment regarding the militia.

The Militia Consists of the Entire Population

The concept of a militia has been demonized by the media, occasionally with justification. Give you an example.

Recently, four soldiers at Fort Stewart (near Savannah) were convicted of murdering two of their colleagues. The foursome was afraid that their plan to take over Fort Stewart by force of arms would be revealed by the victims.

These soldiers called themselves a “militia.” However, four dirtbags do not constitute a real militia.

A constitutional militia had to be chartered by one of the states. The militia were therefore a part of the state government. They were the predecessors of today’s “counties.” It is doubtful that our four terrorists would ever have received a state charter.

Private militia are not the kind of militia referred to in the Constitution as the “Militia of the several States.” I’m not knocking private militia -- at all. It is perfectly legal to form a private militia, and most members are responsible, patriotic and honorable.

However, private militia and gun-rights groups are greatly disempowered because they don’t have the force of state law behind them that they usually deserve.

More importantly, private militia are relatively small in numbers compared to the early American Militia which consisted of the entire population. Did you get that? All of the People were required by law to be militia members. Therefore, the government of the state of Georgia consisted of … everyone.

According to Thomas Jefferson, “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

The Supreme Law Requires State Militias

The state militia is a governmental office/department which still exists and is waiting to be revitalized and staffed. The militia enjoys the same permanent legal status as the other six players in the constitutional drama --- the States, the United States, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court and We the People --- none of whom has an expiration date or the legal right to alter or abolish any other player without violating the Constitution.

The state of Georgia could not abolish itself or its militia (absent the consent of three fourths of the states) because it would be in violation of its constitutional contract which requires that there be states and that each state have a militia.

The militia is by far the oldest constitutional player. When the Constitution was enacted in 1787, the militia had already been an essential and integral part of colonial and government for 150 years. That’s why the Supreme Law of the Land declares only the militia to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

If we had somehow forgotten to elect a president for 200 years, could we hold a presidential election tomorrow and finally put a family in the White House? Of course! The Constitution requires that there be a President.

So is it with the “Militia of the Several States.” The Constitution requires their existence, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It would be unconstitutional to outlaw them or even to alter the form in which they existed in 1787. This is what really guarantees that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. That right is everyone’s right as a member of the militia.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not because it is a right (constitutional rights are infringed all the time), but because, when the Constitution was enacted in 1787, all state citizens, all of the People, were required by law (the colonial and state militia statutes) to be armed members of their state militia.

The Right Is Actually A Duty

Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms was actually a duty to keep and bear arms. If the People are not armed, then the People cannot be the militia required by both their state constitutions and the Supreme Law of the Land.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people [and] that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson

In the eighteenth century, any form of gun control would be unthinkable and illegal because it would interfere with the functioning of the militia. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s foremost constitutional lawyer tells us (in his seminal work, The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of the Militia of the Several States):

“From the settling of the first Colonies in the mid-1600s, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was everywhere and always coincident with a duty of the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms for service (actual or potential) in their Colonial and then State Militia. Indeed, it is impossible to read the dozens of Colonial and State Militia Acts of the pre-constitutional period -- in basic form and content strikingly similar to one another, from New Hampshire in the North to Georgia in the South -- without concluding that the right and the duty to keep and bear arms were then -- and, absent amendment of the Constitution, remain today -- two sides of the selfsame coin. Nowhere will a researcher find a body of Colonial or early State laws explicitly recognizing, protecting, and even enabling the right of individuals to keep and bear arms outside of the context of the duty of each individual to keep and bear arms.”

Clearly, the reason for the imposition of a universal duty to bear arms was to be able to resist invasion from without and rebellion/terrorism from within. If the Second Amendment is considered in its entirety, it can easily be seen that its primary purpose is not just to protect the rights of hunters or skeet shooters or even to protect one’s self, home or family. The real purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people.

Consider the other “militia clauses” of the Constitution. There’s nary a word about sport or personal self-defense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 - - “[Congress shall have Power] to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 - -“[Congress shall have Power] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

Article II, Section II, Clause 1 - - “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

Weakness Invites Aggression

When government takes away citizens’

right to bear arms, it becomes citizens’ duty

to take away government’s right to govern.”

-- George Washington

Last year (2012) 8583 citizens were shot to death in the U.S. --- by their fellow citizens. 8583 is a big number.

One hundred million (100,000,000) is a much bigger number. That’s the approximate number of citizens of the world 1) who were killed by their own governments in the last century (56,000,000) plus the number of citizens 2) who were killed by foreign governments in wars (43,000,000). That’s the real reason the founders passed the Second Amendment – so we could defend ourselves against domestic tyranny and foreign invasion. This is why it is important for the American people to retain their military-style (“assault”) weapons, which, by the way, were responsible for less than 1% of the 8583 deaths referred to above.

America has never been invaded. Perhaps that’s because the People have been so heavily armed. Just after Pearl Harbor, Japan considered a land invasion of California until Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander of the Japanese Navy, told his Emperor “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Also, Switzerland, one of the most heavily armed nations on earth, is the only European country Hitler never conquered. Because of the people’s militia, he never even tried.

An unarmed or passive populace is perceived as weak by predator nations, just as gun-free schools and shopping malls are perceived as soft targets by whackos. Even gun control advocates don’t dare to place “Gun Free Zone” signs on their front lawns.

Strength is the only virtue respected by the animal-dominated consciousness of the Irans, al-Qaedas and North Koreas of the world. The lion gets hungry every day, but he doesn’t attack the swiftest or strongest.

Tyranny By Your Own Government

However, the greatest concern of our founding fathers was the prevention of tyranny by their own government. Thomas Jefferson tells us:

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is Liberty … The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Tyranny in America may seem unlikely to you, but it can happen. It happened in the following cases:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 the Soviet government murdered about 20 million of its own people.

In 1911 Turkey forbade firearms, and from 1915 to 1917 its government killed approximately 1,500,000 Armenians.

In 1938 Germany outlawed guns. From 1939 to 1945 the Nazi government killed 13 million of its own people, including 6 million Jews.

In 1935 China instituted gun control, and from 1948 to 1953 the Chinese military killed about 20 million “dissidents.”

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated (for being Mayan, I suppose).

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were massacred.

In all, about 56,000,000 citizens were killed by their own governments in the last century. Almost all of them were unarmed.

You may think that our government would never treat us like that. You may be right, but we are a society in apparent decline, and our dear Constitution is treated like road kill. What if you’re wrong? What would you say to your children or your grandchildren?

Freedom Isn’t Free

Freedom must be fought for, and that fight is never won and never lost. That’s why Thomas Jefferson maintained that “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

In any case, the Second Amendment is your best insurance against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny because its primary purpose is to preserve the military capacity of the American people. Let’s read the Second Amendment again.

“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.”

Again, the real meaning of the Second Amendment lies in the word “Militia.” Historically the militia consists of the entire population of each and every state, armed and trained for military service with battlefield weapons and ammunition always in their permanent possession as a deterrent and response to invasion and tyranny.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed against infringement only because that right is possessed by militia members. Otherwise it can be limited and eroded just like any other natural right, e.g., free speech. Courts subject individual rights to the “balancing test.” The right may be infringed to the extent the interests of society require.

The Constitution requires that there be state militia. The founders regarded only the militia of the several states (not the army or the navy) as “necessary to the security of a free State” (meaning the states individually and collectively as America).

The definition of a militia is determined by the make-up of the colonial and state militia laws in effect when the Constitution was enacted in 1787. In every state the militia consisted of the entire population of each state, and each and every militia member was required by law to be armed.

[Note: The early militia consisted of all able-bodied males between 15 and 60. Women today are not only legally “emancipated,” they are fighting our wars, and they would certainly qualify for militia membership today. All that is needed is to redefine “militia” in the state constitutions.]


Brave New War, Brave New Enemy

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” -- George Washington

It is unlikely that America will ever be invaded.

Indeed, war between nations has become less likely because of both the fear of nuclear retaliation and (more importantly) globalization --- our economies are too integrated. This is powerful evidence that capitalism is a pacifying force.

For example, if China were to invade the U.S., it would lose the primary market for its exports, and it would never receive a penny of interest on the two trillion dollars of U.S. treasury bonds it holds.

However, America has a new enemy. It has no government or borders, it doesn’t care about economic disruption and it will use every nuke it can get its hands on.

M.A.D. – mutually assured destruction – prevented nuclear conflict during the Cold War. M.A.D. won’t work with radical Islam because it values death over life, especially death during jihad, and nuclear annihilation would be the ultimate jihad. As Osama bin Laden used to say,

“We love death. The U.S. loves life.

That’s the difference between us two.”

You would never hear anything like that from Hitler or Stalin or Mao or even that punk Kim Jong-un. Radical Islam is a different breed of cat.

The new enemy is not a country but a militant civilization, largely Islamic, which is stateless and ever-changing, appearing in many countries as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, ISIS, the PLO, Hezbollah, HAMAS, the mujahedin, al-Fatah, etc., etc.

We call our new enemy “terrorism.” These terrorists have declared war on us. They are dedicated to conquering America and killing all non-Muslim Americans.

Capitalism Has Created High Tech Terrorism

Capitalism is nothing but technological innovation by entrepreneurs.

The key to terrorism’s success is that it has become super-empowered by modern technology, enabling a very few to inflict enormous damage on society.

As time passes, the ability of more and more people to inflict greater damage on society is increasing.

A single terrorist with a cell phone can detonate a bomb miles away, and the purchase of a $200 Sony Play Station 2 will provide the core technology for a missile guidance system.

Consider the small group that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. Osama bin Laden bragged that this caper cost $500,000.

The short-term cost to the U.S. was $500 billion.

That’s a low figure if you consider the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars ($ 1 trillion each) which wars probably would not have occurred without 9/11. Some say it was 9/11 which destroyed the federal budget and tripled the national debt.

As you are reading these words, terrorists are planning to hack into and disrupt oil and gas distribution, electrical grids, transportation, and communications and financial systems. We are told by our own DHS that this is “inevitable”!!

Without electricity, you have no water, refrigeration, sewage elimination, or communications. In other words, you have chaos and 19th century technology.

National Governments Cannot Protect Us

All of our systems are vulnerable because they are centralized and (therefore) inefficient. These systems are provided by cumbersome, pyramidal bureaucracies (like the FBI, CIA, FEMA, DHS, Secret Service, etc.) which are slow in discovering and responding to threats.

Like most nation states, America’s military and her domestic security is highly centralized. This is an asset when our enemy is another highly centralized nation/state but it is a liability when our adversary is a global guerilla network.

Our enemy is so potent because it is strong where we are weak – in its organizational structure. A centralized defense system is brittle because it is vulnerable to a decentralized attack by a network of small agile, complex groups which have no permanent structure, leadership or location.

For example, our Department of Homeland Security is pyramidal and ultra-bureaucratic. In other words, it is … slow.

There was almost no air force response to 9/11. It was up to the passengers to scuttle the aircraft whose destination was in fact the White House. Also, Katrina and Sandy have revealed the massive incompetence of federal and state governments even in responding to a natural disaster.

Additionally, our conventional top-down bureaucratic security apparatus has become increasingly intrusive. Warrantless searches, surveillance, seizures and detention increase the risk of a gradual emergence of a police state, with little added security benefits.

In 1776 all of the People were required by law to be members of the militia of the several states and to be armed, trained and organized. Back then the right to bear arms was a duty.

Consider the value of having a militia [which the Second Amendment of U.S. Constitution requires as being “necessary to the security of a free State”] consisting of the entire population of each state, which would perform homeland security functions on the county level. Indeed, the militia units were the basic units of government which evolved into today’s counties.

America was meant to be self-defending and self-governing – by the militia.

Let me give you a few examples of how the militia could help us solve our crime and terrorism problem.

How to Prevent Mass Shootings

The recent slaughter in American schools and malls can be regarded as a form of domestic terrorism. Let’s examine this in a global context.

In 2010 there were approximately 468,000 intentional homicides in the world, a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 people. The most murderous regions of the world are southern Africa (30.5 homicides per 100,000) and Central America (28.5).

The world’s most murderous country is Honduras – 91.6 homicides per 100,000, half by firearms.

The body count in the U.S. in 2011 was 14,748, a rate of 4.7 per 100,000, about two-thirds the global average. 11,610 of the U.S. deaths were caused by firearms (3.7 per 100,000).

Gun control advocates compare the U.S. to the U.K., where guns are illegal. In the U.K., there were 722 deaths in 2010, 1.2 per 100,000 (.04 by firearms). These advocates argue that unlimited access to guns always leads to more homicide and violent crime.

That’s not true. Consider Switzerland.

Instead of a standing army, Switzerland has a people’s militia for its national defense. As a result Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world.

Switzerland also has an extremely low crime rate. In fact, it is one of the safest countries in the world. In 2010, there were 52 intentional homicides, less than 0.7 per 100,000 (.52 per 100,000 by firearms).

Gun Control Increases Crime

Moreover, if you focus on the homicide rate, you miss the big picture. The big picture is that, historically, gun control usually increases the overall crime rate, particularly violent crimes. Consider what happened in Great Britain, the poster child for gun control.

The U.K. is actually the most violent country in Europe, even more violent than the U.S. in number of violent crimes per person (2034 per 100,000 people versus America’s 466). Some argue that it is therefore four times safer to live in the U.S. than in the U.K.

In Australia, semi-automatic pistols/rifles and pump-action shotguns were banned in 1997. Handguns in the home have to be unloaded and locked up. Armed robberies increased by 69%, assaults with firearms increased by 28% and home invasions by 21%. Even gun murder increased by 19%.

When guns were completely banned in Washington, D.C. the crime rate soared, including the murder rate. Since banning handguns in 1980, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has increased 40%.

Why do gun bans almost always result in an increase in crime, especially violent crime? Because criminals, by definition, do not obey laws – specifically, they do not turn in their guns, and they are emboldened to target law-abiding citizens, who cannot defend themselves or their property against an armed invasion. According to Thomas Jefferson,

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Gun control has clearly not worked in the world’s most homicidal nations - - - Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Guatemala, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan and Colombia, where firearm homicide is astronomical, and where a major criminal element, like a drug cartel, which has absolutely no intention of honoring gun laws, can generate a level of violence which seems to threaten the very survival of the nation

Gun Free Zones Are Killing Zones

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were 12,664 “weapons related” homicides in the United States, 8,583 by firearms, 1,694 by knives, 728 by hands/feet/fists and 496 by blunt objects.

While only 323 deaths were caused by rifles (of all kinds), the main thrust of Barack Obama’s proposed legislation is to ban the use of “assault” rifles, which are probably responsible for only about 1% of firearms-related deaths.

It would be more logical to ban knives, sticks and fists. The use of assault rifles to commit homicides should be the least of any gun-control advocate’s concern.

A higher priority should be assigned to repealing the “Gun Free Schools Act of 1994.” This statute made it a federal crime to possess a firearm on any school property. Let’s see how that worked out.

Before 1994 there wasn’t a single “mass school shooting” [one in which 3 or more people were killed] in the U.S. However, between 1997 and the Sandy Hook tragedy, there were 14 such incidents.

The Gun Free Schools Act has created magnets for psychos who now know that “gun free zones” are really “helpless victim zones,” also known “self-defense prohibited zones.” Many have argued that the Act has therefore aided and abetted criminal activity.

The police cannot protect our children. I mean no disrespect, but law enforcement simply can’t respond fast enough. The average response time is pretty damn good (8 minutes), but the carnage is usually over by the time they arrive. Only people on the scene are able to make a difference.

We should consider arming teachers, staff, bus drivers and parents taking children to and from the school.

Let us further consider the many state laws which prevent all firearms in shopping malls.

Malls are therefore another “soft” target for CDB’s (cowardly dirt bags) who know it is extremely unlikely that shoppers will be armed.

However, sometimes they are. A shooter in an Oregon mall had a high capacity semi-automatic rifle, but he was able to kill only two people (I know – that’s two too many) before a shopper wearing a legal concealed-carry handgun apprehended the shooter, who suddenly decided to take his own life.

It is so obvious that malls would be safer if more shoppers are armed and/or if there is a lot more armed security personnel.

Some argue that banning assault weapons would prevent shootings in schools and malls. No way!! Whackos and criminals don’t obey the law. They won’t turn in their assault rifles and they can get any firearm they want on the black market.

America Was Meant To Be Self-Governing

One argument against the militia in its original form is that it would be inhumane to force those Americans who are terrified of firearms to bear them. Clearly, exceptions would have to be made, just as they were back in the day.

However, the greatest benefit of reviving the militia is not universal armament. Forget about guns for a minute. The greatest benefit that would accrue from the return of the militia would be the return of local government, local meaning state and county.

It’s time for a return to self-governance. The founding fathers meant for the militia to be a mechanism whereby the skills, experience and intelligence of the entire population were involved in the governing process. The primary function of the militia was governmental, and not everyone needs to be armed in order to make a contribution.

Also, the militia would provide the means of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are inclined to steal or kill, thereby satisfying today’s advocates for gun control. Local citizens would be much more effective than national legislation in detecting potential whackos and terrorists in their neighborhoods and in denying them the ability to create mayhem.

An armed citizenry would be a useful partner with local government and law enforcement (there are 800,000 cops nationwide) in detecting those who are not worthy of possessing firearms. Local eyes and ears a much more effective form of gun control and homeland security than a remote and ponderous Central Authority.

So, the best case for a militia is that our Founding Fathers intended for America to be locally self-governing, and the militia was the centerpiece of that strategy. Consider the value of having a militia consisting of the entire population of the State of Georgia, which would perform any and all government functions on the county level. Government would be tremendously enriched by the infusion of skills, experience and intelligence of the entire community.­ Again, the militia units were the basic units of society which evolved into today’s counties.

Governing was not intended to be a spectator sport. The Second Amendment was enacted not only for security but also for political purposes -- to assure the People’s control over the entire state and federal systems.

One ongoing responsibility of self-governance would be to create a wall between firearms and potential criminals. This can only be accomplished with the cooperation and active involvement of those who are familiar with their neighbors and can make the best assessment as to what constitutes a threat.

After a while the expression “Not bad for government work!” would go out of fashion. You could really believe people who say “We’re from the government; we’re here to help.”


How Can The Second Amendment Be Enforced?

[T]he several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.2

-- Thomas Jefferson

Nullification is the act of a state preventing the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders.

Nullification also includes state inaction. State cooperation is necessary for the enforcement of most federal laws. When states refuse to cooperate, there usually is no enforcement.

But what if the Supreme Court says the law in question is constitutional? Can a state override an opinion of the High Court? That depends on the contract.

What contract?

The Constitution is an Employment Contract

The Constitution is an employment contract. The federal government was hired by the 13 states to provide national security, conduct foreign relations and regulate interstate commerce. Period!

The contract is very specific in its grants of powers to the federal government, which is therefore a limited government, a government of limited powers. The power of the states with regard to the federal government is otherwise unlimited. According to James Madison,

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”[1]

Mr. Madison’s meaning is reflected in the Tenth Amendment (which merely restates what is already implicit in the Constitution).

“The powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Once they decided to hire/create a federal government, the primary purpose of the 13 states at the Constitutional Convention was to prevent it from becoming too powerful. If the Supreme Court had the final say on what is constitutional, the feds would have unlimited power. The Court would be able to sprinkle legal holy water on a federal dictatorship.

The federal government cannot be expected to limit itself. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (sooner or later). History has shown that the federal government will not limit/police itself. Some outside agency must do that job.

A dispute between a state and the federal government is a dispute between employer and employee, a dispute between principal and agent. It would be absurd to allow a department of the employee/agent/subject (the Supreme Court) to adjudicate the dispute with no recourse by the employer/principal/sovereign.

Let’s say I hire someone to mow, edge and rake my lawn, and he wants to invite himself in for lunch, sleep with my wife and become a signatory on my bank account.

He can’t do that. Why? Because that’s not the deal we struck. It’s not in the contract.

Let’s say the lawn guy won’t ease off. He gets real huffy. He goes on and on about how I’m violating his “rights.”

One day he shows up and says, “Hey, Monte. I know how we can work this out. Let my nine lawyers decide the case. What do you say?”

“Hell, why don’t I just let your let your mother settle it, you little dweeb! She’d be fair and impartial, right?”

Dweeb: “Yeah. Why didn’t I think of that?”

The Supreme Court is a Lapdog,

Not a Watchdog

The founders never intended for the Supreme Court to be the Great Nullifier by striking down/voiding/nullifying the acts of state and federal officers who took the very same oath to uphold the very same Constitution and who are fully capable of assessing the constitutionality of said actions.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, ascending to the throne formerly graced by the royal butt of King George III of England, preposterously declared in the cases of Marbury v. Madison [5 U.S. 137 (1803)] and Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee [14 U.S. 304 (1816)] that it had the final say in all matters of constitutionality, and could declare void any act of the federal or state governments.

Thomas Jefferson, who rarely wasted an opportunity to trash the Supreme Court, once said:

“I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury vs. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law.”

Nonetheless, America has kowtowed to the Supremes ever since these decisions were handed down. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia spoke at my alma mater (Princeton University) and said “Wringing your hands about States’ rights, forget it. They’re gone. Basically the federal government can do whatever it wants. Who’s going to protect the states? My Court? Ha – we’re feds!”

Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why should it? It’s a fed! The Court is a rubber stamp of approval for Congress.

The Supreme Court is not a constitutional watchdog; it’s a lapdog for the Animal Left.

All of our lives we have been told that the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutionality. That’s why they call it supreme, you say.

This is the purest and sheerest slave talk! The Supreme Court was created to give its opinion, and that’s it! Whether that opinion is honored depends on whether it’s any good.

Each branch of the federal government -- Legislative (Congress), Executive (President) and Judicial (the Supreme Court) -- was meant to decide constitutionality for itself.

Think about it. The founding fathers’ greatest fear was a central government of unlimited power. That’s why they created three federal departments as “checks and balances” against each other.

President Andrew Jackson once said, “Mr. Marshall [then the Chief Justice] has given his opinion -- now let him enforce it.” Jackson believed that the opinion in question was erroneous, and he was, in effect, nullifying it by refusing to enforce it (enforcement being the function of the Executive department).

Governing Was Meant To Be Inefficient

“But this is so inefficient,” you say. “How can anything get done if there’s no one who has the final say?”

As to constitutionality, the business of governing in Washington, D.C. was never meant to be efficient. It was meant to be inefficient.

The most “efficient” way of getting things done is to create a federal pyramid ruled by six alpha-males and three alpha-females, which is what Justice Scalia thought that we have today. In Oberrgfell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Scalia said that,

[i]t is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court … This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine … robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.[2]

The framers of the Constitution never intended for there to be horizontal judicial infallibility (between the three branches of the federal government) or vertical judicial infallibility (between the federal government and the states).

Indeed, it was the states which created the federal government. Why would the states give nine lawyers for their hired help the power to have the final say in all legal disputes?

Collectivists See Things Differently

Collectivists contend that it was not the states but the people themselves who created the federal government (i.e., the people and not the states were the party to the employment contract, and the states have no say). Thomas Woods, author of Nullification, How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, calls this the nationalist theory of the Union.

“This version of American history and constitutionalism conceives of the United States as deriving from a single sovereign people rather than from an agreement among the states and the various peoples thereof. In this view, the United States is just another modern unitary state, in which a monopolistic central authority is the source of all power, and any lesser bodies (in this case, the states) derive their own powers and privileges from this central authority.

The compact theory, which Upshur sought to uphold against the nationalist version put forth by Story, held that the United States had been formed when the peoples of each of the thirteen states, each acting in its sovereign capacity, ratified the Constitution in the months and years following its drafting in 1787.”

The Nationalist and Compact Theories

1) The Constitution was ratified by each state, rather than through a national vote by a unified/amalgamated/consolidated population, suggesting the United States is a federal compact between the states.

Nationalists point out that the Constitution begins with the words “We, the People.” However, the original draft of the Constitution began with “We the States,” but it was changed to “We the People,” not by the convention itself, but by the Committee on Style which believed that such wording might offend some states which had not yet decided to join the Union.

2) The federal government was granted a few very limited powers, and the remainder of authority and sovereignty was reserved to the states, as was later made clearer by the Tenth Amendment. If all legal authority springs from the federal government, why was most authority explicitly reserved to the states?

3) The nationalists’ argument that Americans had become a single people well before 1776 is destroyed by the following words in the Declaration of Independence:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united [not “United”] States of America ... solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” (emphasis added)

Notice the use of the lower case “u” in “united.” Treaties with France (1778), the Netherlands (1782) and Sweden (1783), listed each and every State as being the party known as “the United States,” and the word “united” was rarely capitalized.

Even as late as the Civil War most knowledgeable Americans regarded themselves as state citizens first and Americans second.

When Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army in 1961, he declined, stating that he could not go to war against his own “country,” Virginia.

The peace treaty (1783) between the United States and England was (at the insistence of the Brits) signed by each and every state.

As a country our beloved America is much more than the sum of its parts. However, her legal system was based on the sovereignty of thirteen individual nation states, and, as a matter of law, the states continue to be the employer/principal/parent and the federal government is their employee/agent/subsidiary.

Legally speaking, the United States continues to be a “confederacy” of fifty nations.

4) Nationalists are fond of citing three clauses in the Constitution as support for a central government of unlimited power.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause (in Article I, Section 8) provides that Congress shall have Power to tax, pay debts and “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

If Congress is authorized to take any action to further the “general welfare,” why does the Constitution (in the same Article and Section) bother to grant a limited number of carefully limited powers to Congress?

If federal power is unlimited, why doesn’t the Constitution just say so?

The founders greatest fear was unlimited federal power, so they enacted the Tenth Amendment which states as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause (in the very same Article and Section) further provides that the federal government shall have the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof.” Thomas Woods explains:

“Of course, it was not designed as an “elastic clause,” an invitation to tyranny that would have horrified just about everyone. It was intended as a note of clarification only. It meant not that the federal government was thereby granted an array of unspecified powers, but that the government could perform simple tasks that were clearly incidental to carrying out its enumerated powers. Thus the powers to erect “needful Buildings” would, by direct (rather than fanciful) implication, involve a power to purchase lumber for this purpose.”

The Supremacy Clause

The supremacy clause (in Article VI) states that “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

Wow! What better proof could there be that the founders had created a federal government of unlimited power?

The fly in the ointment, however, is that, in order to attain supremacy status, the law in question must be made “in pursuance of the Constitution.” That is, the law has to be constitutional, and if it’s not, a state can nullify it.

Thus, we see in the strained, overreaching and convoluted arguments of the nationalists, an attempt to turn America into what Woods calls just another “modern” centralized state, “an undifferentiated aggregate of isolated individuals” who “endow a central government with the power to rule over them.”

The Supreme Court was never intended to have the final say on what is or what is not constitutional. The People and their States were meant to decide that for themselves. This system (called “federalism”) was not set up not to maximize efficiency. The most efficient system would be a police state.

With the exception of the specific powers granted to their federal agents, the States remained sovereign, limited only by their own constitutions, and the federal government was meant to be subject to their sovereignty. This was a problem for one politician who promised that he

“would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether. For us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people; it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation … state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power.

The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease and will some day cease . . . National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.”

The politician’s name was Adolph Hitler.

In The Gravest Extreme

In summation, the creators of the United States are the states themselves, and it is their responsibility to defend their sovereign citizens against unconstitutional federal laws and actions by nullifying them.

The advice of our founding fathers, who foresaw our predicament, was to resist tyranny in whatever form it appears.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, suggested the following in Federalist #46:

“Should an unwarrantable [unconstitutional] measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable [constitutional] measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

The eighteenth century definition of “repugnance” was “disobedience.” Madison was saying that when enough people disobey and refuse to cooperate with the federal government, it would not be able to enforce its laws.

The book between these covers is a call for a return to the rule of law, because the laws in question – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – are in such harmony with higher law. However, it is impossible for positive law (the law of man) always to be in accordance with higher law, and extralegal measures should not always be ruled out.

I am reminded of Massad Ayoob’s classic book on firearms entitled In the Gravest Extreme.

The First and Supreme Law

America may be approaching her gravest extreme, a moment in which the danger to the Republic is so great that extraordinary actions must be contemplated.

The Declaration of Independence imposes a duty to “alter and abolish” a government that is destructive of the people’s natural rights, but it insists that such action shall not be taken for “light and transient” causes.

I believe that our cause is neither light nor transient, and we may be approaching a very grave challenge to our way of life. Our enemies within and outside our gates are formidable and have no regard whatsoever for the rule of law except its use as a weapon of war. All the while we, in our decency (and often in our weakness) quibble over legal niceties.

Most tyrants are very law abiding because they create laws which legalize their otherwise criminal behavior. They move within legislative cocoons. Everything that Hitler and Stalin did was perfectly legal during the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

Moreover, most of what George Washington, Gandhi and Jesus did was illegal as hell. Indeed, their obedience to law would have been obedience to tyranny.

However, in disobeying and resisting law, you sometimes find yourself out on a limb, and you proceed at your peril. According to Andrew M. Allison, Thomas Jefferson once said:

“The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. . . .

It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.

[To save] the Republic . . . is the first and supreme law.”


How To Legally Say No To Federal Gun Control Laws

Hundreds of Sheriffs Are Doing Just That

Christopher M. Clinton is the Sheriff of Towns County, Georgia. He recently announced his intention regarding President Obama’s proposed gun laws:

“I will, as my oath requires, aggressively oppose any state or federal legislation that attempts to take away any of the natural rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the law-abiding citizens I serve. I will exercise the full authority of the office of Sheriff in defending all of the constitutional rights of each and every citizen of Towns County, Georgia, so help me God!”

Sheriff Clinton is not alone. 269 county sheriffs across the country have made similar stands against gun control, including the sheriffs of these counties in Georgia: Gilmer, Oconee, Cherokee, Cobb, Gwinnett, Paulding, Walton and Twiggs. Note that a large portion of metropolitan Atlanta is included (Cherokee, Cobb and Gwinnet).

Also, eight sheriffs associations have made public commitments to protect their citizens’ Second Amendment rights against proposed federal gun legislation.

The Georgia Sheriffs Association, for example, pledges to “stand by the Second Amendment. The sheriffs will aggressively oppose federal or state legislation which infringes upon law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.”

Also, sheriffs associations in eight other states have made public commitments to protect their citizens’ Second Amendment rights against proposed federal gun legislation.

Law enforcement is increasingly becoming aware that it is settled law in this country that an unconstitutional law is not a law at all. It is void. It does not exist. They maintain it would be absurd to enforce . . . nothing … in this case, the unconstitutional-and-therefore-void gun control laws.

These sheriffs maintain that they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. In order to honor their oaths they must know what the Constitution says and means.

The Military, Too

This movement is not confined to sheriffs. It includes members of the Army, Navy, National Guard, reserves, peace officers of all kinds and fire-fighters. Many of them have created a national organization called Oathkeepers. They feel it is important that they determine for themselves whether the orders they are given conform to the Constitution which they have sworn an oath to uphold.

Accordingly, the Oathkeepers have posted a list of orders they will not obey because they “consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people.” First and foremost they declare that “We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people … In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault weapons” ban.” According to Stewart Rhodes, the President of Oathkeepers,




Mr. Rhodes’ remarks remind me of the Battle of Thermopylae which took place in the summer of 480 B.C. Outnumbered 40 to 1, the Greeks were commanded by the invading Persians to throw down their weapons, to which the Greek king Leonidas replied, “Molon labe!” (“Come and take them.”)

The Greek historian Herodotus tells us: "Here they defended themselves to the last, those who still had swords using them, and the others resisting with their hands and teeth."

The battle of Thermopylae is remembered as one of the most courageous last stands in history. It was the Greek “Alamo.”

The Second Amendment Preservation Act

This Act, drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center, is another example of state nullification of federal firearm legislation/regulation/control. Created by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Act’s more important provisions are listed below.

“(1) The Legislature of this State finds that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed;

(2) that it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect state employees, including law enforcement officers, from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and individual rights affirmed under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States and under the Constitution of this state;

(3) that pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government may not commandeer this State’s officers, agents, or employees to participate in the enforcement or facilitation of any federal program not expressly required by the Constitution of the United States;

(4) that this right to be free from the commandeering hand of the federal government has been most notably recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Printz v.United States [521 U.S. 898 (1997] when the Court held: ‘The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program’; and

(5) that the anti-commandeering principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures.

Other than compliance with an order of the court, notwithstanding any law, regulation, rule or order to the contrary, no agency of this state, political subdivision of this state, or employee of an agency or political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity shall:

(1) Knowingly and willingly participate in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation issued, enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act regarding a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition.

(2) Utilize any assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to local entities on or after the effective date of this act, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids a federal agency, federal agent, or corporation providing services to the federal government in the enforcement or any investigation pursuant to the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation issued, enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act regarding a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition.”


The federal government is not going to help the states to revive the militia. Indeed, the feds are trying to bury/bypass the militia of the states by calling them the “National Guard.” The Guard was created under Article One, Section Eight, which grants Congress the power “to raise and support Armies,” and not under its power “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia.”

Therefore, the National Guard is federal, and Congress or the President (via an executive order as Commander-in-Chief) can eliminate the role of the states in the Guard altogether.

The militias are required by the Constitution to remain as integral departments of the state governments, and the feds have no power to remove them from state control. Unfortunately, the feds are increasingly unrestrained by such niceties as law.

Congress tried to drive the final nail in the militia coffin by declaring in 32 U.S.C.109 that “a state … may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces,” thereby attempting to disqualify the People from militia participation. This statute is so unconstitutional that it has the legal authority of a fart in a windstorm.

Also, in Article One, Section 8, Clause 15 the Constitution gives Congress the power to “call forth” the militia in three situations - to suppress insurrection, repel invasions and to “execute the laws of the Union [i.e., federal law].” The same wording deceptively appears in the National Guard Act to give the impression that the Guard is really the militia.

However, no matter which law the Leftist orcs decide to enforce – the Constitution or the Guard Act -- the laws to be “executed” must be constitutional or they will be subject to nullification by the state governor who may then refuse to transfer the Guard to federal control.


The Constitution is not self-enforcing, and it is clear that our elected representatives are too ambitious, greedy and/or incompetent to get the job done.

America was meant to be self-governing at the state and local level. It is time to declare our personal independence from the increasing centralization of power in the hands of a few. Let us take our power back by restoring the decentralized society given to us by our founding fathers.

I pray there will be no need for violence. This is not a book about rebellion or revolution. Indeed, ours is a movement based on a single strategy: Obey the law! We will restore America by restoring the rule of law. However, to do that we must know what the law is. That is why I have written this book.

The average life of a democracy is about 200 years. Eventually, ignorant and self-centered voters, the professional politicians and special interest groups will eat out its substance. Our votes don’t make a difference anymore because the corruption is so advanced that candidates who are a threat to the Legal Matrix are screened out of the political process.

Our elected officials’ ignorance of the law is almost as widespread as their corruption. When asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, a U.S. Senator deferred by saying “I’m not a lawyer.” For me this was a truly sick moment. The Senator had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That requires that he knows what the Constitution says.

It is up to us to interpret and enforce the Constitution. That document begins with the words “We the People,” not “we the politicians” or “we the judges.” We are the principals and all government officials are our agents. We are not their subjects.


The author is grateful to Edwin Vieira, Jr. (probably the nation’s foremost constitutional lawyer) for his explosive and groundbreaking research on the militia. Much of this chapter is based on his book, The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of the Militia of the Several States).

Merriam-Webster defines nullification as “the act of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enactment within its territory a law of the United States.” The Tenth Amendment Center defines nullification as “any act or set of acts which has as its result a particular law being rendered legally null and void or unenforceable in practice.”

The author acknowledges the tremendous contribution of Thomas E. Woods, author of Nullification, How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st Century, ( and Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, the clearinghouse and primary resource for the nullification movement, regarded by Woods as “far and away the best and most thorough website [] for the spread of nullification and other localist initiatives.”

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in 2nd Amendment

Legal Dynamite

Legal Dynamite: Seven Explosive Secrets of American Law

For most of my career, I was frustrated at having to practice law within the Legal Matrix. During the early 1990s, I came in from the cold, having found a home in the lives and writings of the founding fathers. From them and from America’s foundational documents and principles I discovered what I call “real law,” America’s real but now largely secret legal system.

Legal Dynamite - Seven Explosive Secrets of American LawIn my journey I have discovered seven areas of law which are crucial to the preservation of our liberties but which are now mostly forgotten.

Let me introduce you to each of them, and you will see how the Legal Matrix has obscured and hidden them from you.

The strategies presented herein for the restoration of these Seven Laws may be regarded by some as extreme, but keep in mind that the only thing I’m recommending is that we obey the law. Does that sound radical to you?

Of course not. But to obey the law, you have to know what the law is, and that’s why you picked up this book.

Please don’t reject any of the Seven Laws out of hand. Think about them. Let us work together. I don’t have all the answers. The founding of America required a lot of collaboration, patience and good will. So it will be with her restoration. In the words of the poet Rumi,

“Out beyond ideas of wrong and right, there is a field.   I will meet you there.”

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Books