When Was the U.S.a Officially Founded?

 

Yesterday I was walking through a little vendor mall (glorified indoor flea market with booths operated by multiple people) and found a neat little piece of American Bicentennial memorabilia. I found a 2×3 foot flag emblazoned with the words “American Revolution Bicentennial 1776-1976” and with a stylized red, white and blue star emblem. I bought it, as I pick up an inexpensive piece of such themed from time to time.

BicentennilalFlagBlogPic.JPG

This little flag got me to thinking. When was the U.S.A. officially founded? When was our bicentennial? This is not the easy question that it seems to be.

The thirteen colonies were in a state of armed rebellion after the “shot heard round the world” at Lexington on April 19, 1775. The Continental army was formed in 1775.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 2, 1776, and subsequently officially printed on parchment and signed by John Hancock on July 4, 1776. This was the unanimous declaration of all 13 states, although several states had declared their independence earlier than the joint declaration. This is why we celebrate the 4th of July.

In a July 3 letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams stated the following: “The Second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forevermore”. (Modern Americans are two days late. I covered this in my July 4th blog post).

But the Declaration of Independence did not a country make. We were still 13 separate and fully sovereign nations in free and mutual association with each other while fighting a common foe –the British government. The Continental Congress had no power to tax any state, or pass laws valid in the territory of a state. We were not formally and legally united.

To formally unite us, the Articles of Confederation was written in 1777.  However the Articles were not ratified until 1781 –when the eight year Revolutionary War was ¾ over! We had no general/national/federal government for most of the war.

Then in 1783 the Treaty of Paris was signed. In this treaty, Great Britain formally acknowledged our independence and the United States legal ownership of the 13 colonies and the Northwest Territory. We were free legally and practically in 1776, but not officially in the eyes of our former masters until 1783.

The Articles of Confederation were generally considered to be a weak and somewhat flawed document. This was solved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was there that this convention, presided over by George Washington himself, wrote our current Constitution. However, the Constitution was not ratified by the required 9 states (Article VII) until 1788, and did not go into effect until 1789. The final 13th state, Rhode Island, did not ratify until 1790.

To top this off, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, usually known as the Bill of Rights, were not ratified into effect until December 15, 1791. Now the Constitution was complete as envisioned by Federalist supporters and Anti-Federalist skeptics.

In 1976 there was a great deal of interest in and celebration of the Bicentennial. There were celebrations everywhere. The government issued memorabilia such as coin sized commerative medallions, and even changed the back of the quarter, half dollar, and dollar coins for 1976. Private companies made a huge amount of Bicentennial collectables.

Which brings us back to the question I began with. When was the U.S.A. officially founded?

It would seem to me that the best option would be 1781, when the Articles of Confederation formally and legally united the 13 colonies into a political union with the formal name of United States. As much as I love the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, perhaps as much as I love the Constitution itself, the correct answer to my question would seem to be 1781.

It would appear that we celebrated our Bicentennial not only in the wrong year, but in the wrong decade. That is a tad embarrassing.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The Houston Nazi Who Wasn’t and the Stupidest Conversation I have heard in Months

 

As I was posting my last column two mornings ago, there was a breaking story on a mass shooting in Houston, Texas. A lawyer named Nathan DaSai apparently decided to shoot at innocent people on the street where he lived. It appears that he wounded six with gunfire, and three with shattered glass (from gunfire). Thankfully, no one was killed by DaSai. Thankfully, police shot and killed DaSai before he could kill any passing motorists.

DaSai is apparently of Indian (India) descent, and his father’s first name is Prakash. The articles I read do not mention him having a family, or a criminal record. No mention has been made of what, if any, religion DaSai practiced. Reports indicate that DaSai may have been having financial difficulty with his law practice, although he was driving a Porsche.

DaSai allegedly had a .45 caliber pistol, a .45 caliber Thompson type carbine, and over 2,000 rounds of ammo with him at this incident. Some news stories I read indicated that he had a “Tommy gun” or a submachine gun. That is unlikely. Actual Thompson submachineguns are heavily regulated under the NFA 34 and very expensive. Likely, DaSai had a semi-auto civilian legal version of the Thompson made by Auto-Ordinance (a division of Khar Arms).

The news headlines are freaking out that DaSai wore some Nazi symbols and/or a uniform during the shooting. I have no idea why DaSai wore Nazi symbols, assuming that he did. First, what is a Nazi? Is the term Nazi confined to the (1) exact version of National Socialism employed by the Third Reich, (2) the Americanized version of George Lincoln Rockwell that was basically an anti-Semitic and slightly authoritarian version of the Founders, (3) a group of skinheads in London going Paki bashing, or (4) young white guys in America forming a faction of the Alt-Right and posting 14/88 type memes? By any of these four definitions, Nathan DaSai is absolutely not a Nazi.

This recent senseless shooting in Houston by this Indian DaSai is just the latest assault on white America. Add him to the list I started in my Chelsea and Charlotte essay on Monday.

Now on to the stupidest conversation I have personally witnessed in a long while, perhaps months. I was sitting in an exclusive internet café recently (McDonald’s!) a few tables away from the participants.

There was an old white guy there, perhaps around 60. He had his little brown son with him playing video games, presumably online. Not sure if he miscegenated with a much younger woman, or adopted the boy. He was a Trump supporter. He then struck up a conversation with a black man that he called by first name. He asked the black guy if he were going to watch the first presidential debate that night. It went downhill from there…

The white guy told the black guy a joke against illegal immigrants which referenced Trump’s planned border wall. They began to debate Trump, with the black man comparing Trump to Hitler and Fidel Castro. Then the old white guy stated that a woman cannot be president because she is not able to lead an army. The black man, who was well spoken for a black, retorted that they could and referenced several former female heads of state –including Golda Meir of Israel. The white guy (accurately) claimed that women are not emotionally made to be frontline combat troops, to which the black guy admitted that they were emotionally different in that they were more compassionate and that women should be allowed to do whatever they wanted to. As he left, the black man proclaimed that the world was messed up because men had been running it. Seriously.

Why would a white guy with a brown son tell an anti-immigrant joke to a black man –presumably expecting a good reaction? And where did this black man imbibe all the anti-American, feminist, social justice warrior (SJW) garbage?

I sometimes marvel at the general ignorance of the electorate. Most Americans, including most conservatives, do not really care about the Bill of Rights –if it gets in the way of their personal legal desires or that ill-defined phrase “national security”.

I also marvel at the illogic of most conservatives. Most modern conservatives do not seem capable of forming a truly principled and coherent argument backed up by American history and the Founder’s political thought. But they know about professional sports, Hollywood, the Rapture, and the Most Holy Number 6 Million!

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Chelsea and Charlotte (the places, not ladies)

 

In the last ten days, the U.S.A. has seen multiple terrorist bombings, a mass stabbing at a Minnesota mall, a mass shooting at a Burlington, Washington mall, and rioting in Charlotte, North Carolina after a black man was shot and killed by police. All off these events have on common thread. Let us look at them one by one, and see if we can find the connection.

On Saturday September 18 a Somali born man stabbed ten people at a mall in Michigan. He reportedly referenced allah -before being shot and killed by an off duty police officer.

Also on September 18, some form of homemade bomb went off near a New Jersey roadway where a Marine Corps 5k charity marathon was set to run. The race had been delayed, so the bomb went off before the race and no one was killed.

Then on the evening of the 18th, a powerful homemade bomb went off in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. It was likely detonated inside a dumpster. Twenty nine people were injured, but thankfully none were killed. Other unexploded bombs were found, at least one being a pressure cooker device. I am unsure why a pressure cooker, a common item among rural folk who can their own garden produce in glass masons jars/“cans”, is desirable to use as a container for an explosive device.

After a gun battle, one Ahmad Rahami was taken into custody. Rahami is 28 years old, was born in Afghanistan, and is a U.S. citizen who lives in NYC. Rahami is (officially) the one behind the bombings in NYC and at the New Jersey marathon. Rahami was shot about 10 times, but is expected to live. (I would be ashamed to be a member of a unit that could non-fatally shoot a guy ten times. Back to the practice range boys).

Senator Lindsey Graham –a Republican, former army officer, and Bilderberg 2016 attendee- has stated that he desires the Chelsea bombing suspect to be held as an enemy combatant –without Constitutional rights. I discussed this concept in my essay “Police State, U.S.A.” in my recent book As America Fades. Basically, there are three reasonable legal options here regarding terrorists. Let me explain.

Option one is that a terrorist is a type of criminal. A criminal –including a mass murder- is entitled to counsel and a jury trial in a civilian court to ascertain one’s guilt.

Option two is that a terrorist is a soldier on jihad. When captured, a soldier is a legal prisoner of war (POW). A POW is entitled to food and health care, and is not to be tried for his actions.

Option three is that a terrorist is a war criminal. A soldier can be tried for crimes against the laws of war –such as rape or murder of non-combatant civilians. But if it is illegal to bomb a city and injure or kill a few dozen people –than it is very illegal to bomb a city from 10,000 feet up and kill thousands of unarmed civilian non-combatants in their homes –like the U.S. government did at Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. The U.S. government celebrates their bomber pilots, not tries them.

As such, the George W. Bush administration came up with the term “enemy combatant” and the concept of torture and indefinite detention. No trial in a court with Constitutional rights, no POW status, and no ramifications for America’s bomber pilots. How convenient for the state –and dangerous to the people’s liberties. I hold that terrorism is a crime.

Then on Tuesday September 20, police in Charlotte, North Carolina shot and killed a black man, 43 year old Keith Lamont Scott. Scott was allegedly shot by a black police officer, though there were several white officers present. Officially, police were preparing to serve a warrant, and noticed Scott (not the subject of the warrant) in his car –allegedly with a marijuana joint and a pistol.

After being approached by police Scott exited his vehicle and was walking backwards when he was shot and killed. The police video does not clearly show Scott holding a pistol –let alone pointing it at anyone. The police have released a picture of a Colt Mustang .380 that Scott was allegedly carrying. Even mainstream media admit that in the police dash cam video it is not clear that Scot was holding a pistol.

Scott’s family claim he had a traumatic brain injury from a motorcycle accident, and was waiting for his son to get off from school. They have also stated that he was reading a book.

This could have went down multiple ways. Scenario one is the official story, that Scott exited the car with a weapon in his hands and was shot by police. Scenario two is that police overreacted and shot an unarmed black man who was threatening no one and then framed him.

I know that the media tried to portray violent thug Trayvon Martin as a good boy who didnu’ nuffin’; for this reason I am cautious about commenting on the Scott shooting. This being said, I am unsure that Scott posed a reasonable imminent threat to police officers.

Regardless of who done what, the blacks in Charlotte are outraged at the shooting of Scott. Somehow, to blacks and much of the media, the shooting of a black man by a black police officer in a town with a black (actually more like mulatto) police chief is considered obvious evidence of white racism. Seriously. Did I miss something here?

The blacks rioted on Tuesday and Wednesday night. Highway traffic was blocked, cars had objects throw at them, semi tucks were looted and their contents set ablaze, and a WalMart was attacked. There were multiple arrests. One protester was shot and killed –by another protester. It got so out of hand that Charlotte was placed on a curfew, and the governor of N.C. called in National Guard troops.

Contrast the reaction to this black man getting shot with that of the government ambush and shooting of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum in Oregon last January. Finicum was a white cowboy who was involved in the peaceful but illegal occupation of the Malheur refuge in Oregon. Finicum was shot and killed (murdered) by government agents –and he fell in the snow near a roadblock –when he was clearly NOT holding a weapon. The media treated him like a criminal or terrorist, and yet white people did not riot.

To further the ramifications of this Charlotte shooting, Donald Trump has recently came out and stated that he approves of “stop and frisk” police operations. Stop and frisk means that cops randomly stop people and frisk them presumably for drugs or weapons- with no warrant. This is totally unconstitutional. People cannot be randomly detained and searched for no reason. People need to go read the 4th Amendment.

Then on Saturday September 24, a young Turkish born man walked into a Macy’s store in a mall and shot and killed five people. Initial reports indicate he may have used a .22 rifle –a weapon optimized for shooting squirrels.

The common thread that connects all of these crimes over the last ten days is that they were carried out by non-Europeans –several of whom were likely of the Muslim religion. This is not white Christians shooting, stabbing, or blowing up each other; this is an attack on our people by a foreign element.

As this was going on, last week, the Smithsonian opened the new ($540 million dollar) National Museum of African American History and Culture. You can go there and see remnants of slavery, Emmett Till’s coffin, and exhibits on the Black Panthers and MLK. President Obama was at the grand opening.

Meanwhile in New Orleans, Louisiana there was a movement to –illegally and forcefully- remove a statue of Andrew Jackson –the hero of the 1814 Battle of New Orleans. As Jackson was a slave owner and removed the Cherokee people to the west, he is apparently a pariah in modern America. Dr. David Duke, a Louisiana resident, volunteered to stand between the monument and the “protestors” to stop the black mobs if the police would not protect the statue, but the police stepped in and arrested some of the anti-Jackson protestors.

Let us face reality. Non-whites hate the America of the Founders. Many white liberals hate the America of the Founders. The powerful Jews in politics, economics and the media hate the America of the Founders. Both legally, culturally, and now even physically –white Americans are under attack in the country their ancestors built.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The United Nations and Globalization

This week Barack Obama spoke before the UN General assembly in New York City, and extolled globalism. I decided to tweak this essay that I wrote quite a while back but never published, and turn it into a blog post.

In this essay I intend to give a relatively brief history of the United Nations and their aims at consolidating political power to set the stage for a one world socialist government. This essay is the result of reading several JBS books and UN documents totaling well over 600 pages and doing some internet research.

The push for the creation of the United Nations (UN) began years before its establishment. In 1942 there was a Declaration of United Nations issued by several countries-including the U.S.A.-concerning cooperation of governments against the Third Reich. There was also a preliminary meeting in August of 1944 by a group of men at the luxurious Dumbarton Oaks estate in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. These men were working to create a newer version of the failed WWI era League of Nations.

Then in 1945, there was a meeting held in San Francisco at which the charter of the United Nations was written. This meeting was presided over by Alger Hiss, an American, CFR member, and spy for the Soviet Union. On October 24, 1945, the treaty/charter of the UN was ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council and came into effect.

The General Assembly is the parliament of the UN and the Secretariat is the executive arm. However, it appears to me that the Security Council is the center of power at the UN. The Security Council concerns itself with warfare, sanctions against nations, and “peacekeeping” operations. The Security Council’s five permanent members are the U.S.A., UK, France, Soviet Union (now Russia), and China (originally Chiang Kai-Shek’s nationalist China {Taiwan}-but after 1971 replaced by the communist Peoples Republic of China).

Not only was the UN’s founding conference chaired by a communist, the most important body (Security Council) of the UN has historically been loaded by socialists and communists. The United Nations has always been pro-communist.

William F. Jasper’s 2001 book The United Nations Exposed quotes G. Edward Griffin as follows:

“In 1950 the State Department issued a document entitled Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45… This and similar official records reveal that the following were key government figures in UN planning within the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Virginius Frank Coe, Dean Acheson, Noel Field, Lawrence Duggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William L. Ullman, and William H. Taylor. With the single exception of Dean Acheson, all of these men have since been identified in sworn testimony as secret Communist agents!

What the excellent Griffin quote above left out was that at least 3-and possibly seven or more- of those seventeen men were Jews. The John Birch Society has published some very good material concerning the CFR, UN, and communism; however they stay far away from open criticism of International Jewry. (Griffin does have the guts to briefly acknowledge that Rothschild and other principal international bankers are Jewish in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island; whether his mention of this is to the credit of his honesty or patriotism, or just an example of something that he would have lost all credibility if he had not admitted, I will leave my readers to judge).

The UN has many agencies and programs, some of the more benevolent sounding ones are: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization, and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). These organizations were created with nice, humanitarian sounding goals to lull the populace of the Western world into accepting the UN. In a free country, it is not the job of the government-or a supranational governmental organization such as the UN- to legislate, oversee or fund the health, education, nutrition, scientific research, or cultural activities of the citizens.

The UN has established so many agencies and programs that I cannot possibly cover them all in this essay. The United Nations Exposed by William F. Jasper is a 354 page work that goes into detail on many of the UNs activities. I shall only cover a few of the most destructive of the UNs activities in this essay.

Agenda 21 was a product of the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 concerns itself with sustainable development, environmentalism, combating poverty, etc. Agenda 21 would like to have the UN and the governments of the world taking jurisdiction over the management and use of the entire land and ocean area of the earth. To put it simply, Agenda 21 is zoning on steroids.

Perhaps the most pressing current threat to American citizens from the UN is global arms control. This arms control affects both states and individuals. The UN began a drive for international weapons controls with the 1961 U.S. State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program For General And Complete Disarmament In A Peaceful World (Department of State Publication 7277). The Freedom From War document called for a gradual, three stage plan for the disarmament of every nation on earth and the simultaneous progressive strengthening of the UN by the creation of a U.N. Peace Force! In the third stage of this plan, it states that (formerly independent) nations would “retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force ”. The U.N Peace Force would be “equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments”. Note that the states may not own nuclear weapons, but the UN is subject to no such prohibition!

Here we have a proposed one world army under the command of the UN with types and quantities of weaponry that would make it basically impossible for any (formerly) sovereign nation to challenge them, much less a citizenry fighting for their freedom!

Another part of phase three of this plan was that “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used  by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes”.  Now we see that civilian ownership of firearms would no longer exist under this plan! The Freedom From War document is nothing more than the deranged fantasy of a would be global tyrant. Regrettably, the Freedom from War proposal was not the last UN gun control attempt.

The push for internationally directed gun control has accelerated in the last two decades; it is perilously near its goal. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that is recognized by the UN and has played an important role in the destruction of the firearms ownership rights of citizens of America and other countries. Rebecca Peters of IANSA was involved in the institution of the extremely strict gun control in Australia. (People who follow the pathetically mainstream National Rifle Association (NRA) will perhaps remember that Peters formally debated NRA official Wayne LaPierre at King’s College in Great Britain several years ago).

Another powerful woman working with the UN to establish international gun control is Cora Weiss. Cora Weiss is a member of the CFR, a 1960’s anti-war activist, official at The Hague Appeal for Peace, Marxist sympathizer, daughter of noted communist Samuel Rubin, husband of New York lawyer Peter Weiss, and a Jew by birth. Both Peter and Cora Weiss have been affiliated with the Institute For Policy Studies (IPS), a Washington, D.C. based progressive think tank which had possible ties to the Soviet KGB. Cora Weiss has also been involved in gun control activities in the United States. Traitors like Cora Weiss are the people wishing to disarm American citizens.

In 2013, there was a UN conference held in New York City which produced the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); the ATT was approved by the UN General Assembly in April of 2013. The ATT was signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (Cohen), but it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and is not legally binding.

The ATT talks about the illicit trade in conventional arms, but how do they define illicit? The ATT regulates the international trade in weapons-including firearms and ammunition-and declares that individual states are duty bound to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list…”.

The ATT acknowledges no right of citizens to own firearms; the Preamble declares: “Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law…” There is no UN acknowledged right of a citizen to own or use a firearm for personal defense or defense against a tyrannical government.

The UN ATT only acknowledges the right OR privilege of citizens owning CERTAIN types of firearms for recreational purposes. Article 5 (2) of the ATT demands that: “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this treaty”. Article 5 (3) states that: “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms”. Article 12 (2) states that: “Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination…” Article 12 (3) states that “Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type…”  The ATT is the foundation for internationally coordinated control of civilian small arms and ammunition.

The UN has already been involved in door to door arms confiscations outside of the USA. In the pictures section of Steve Bonta’s book Inside The United Nations you can see a color photograph of US troops, in combat gear and under UN authority, doing a door to door search for weapons in Kosovo-with black uniformed, blue helmeted UN police officials overseeing the operation!

It is also worth noting that the Korean War (1950-53) was fought under UN authority! American President Harry Truman called the Korean War a “police action” and not a war. American, British, and South Korean troops fought together under UN command against the communist North Koreans and their Chinese allies. Truman prosecuted this war without the Constitutionally mandated Declaration of War; Truman was fighting under United Nations authority!

The UN’s ATT went into effect for those who had ratified it on December 24, 2014. The ATT is law in some countries around the world as you read this. The United States has signed it, but it cannot be law until the U.S. Senate ratifies it. Our Senate could betray us, or Barak Obama –or a future president Clinton- could issue some (unconstitutional) Executive Orders to implement provisions of the ATT without Congress. If Obama were to make that move, it could easily set off a chain reaction that would lead to violent resistance- in short, to the second Revolution.

The UN’s 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a weak and pathetic document compared to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights or the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights. The legal/trial protections of the UN Declaration are far inferior to the U.S. Bill of Rights. For example, UN Article 9 states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. This is a huge difference from the U.S. Bill of Rights’ 4th Amendment, which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. How does the UN define arbitrary? Why is there no UN protection against unreasonable searches or general warrants?

The UN also does not guarantee a trial by a jury of one’s peers, or other Common Law rights held by Americans. Obviously there is no 2nd Amendment or right to bear arms in the UN Declaration!

In 1959 the UN General Assembly passed the “Declaration Of The Rights Of The Child”. This Declaration has ten articles, some containing multiple rights. This Declaration creates new rights, such as in its article 4. Article 4 states that: “The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services”.

While the Bible and American cultural tradition place the responsibility of providing and caring for a child on the child’s parents-and specifically the child’s father-the UN declaration declares entitlements that are to be fulfilled by government. Who shall pay for this food/nutrition, housing, and medical care if the family is not able to? Government will. This article is pure socialism.

Please note that Americans have the God given and Constitutionally secured right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Recognizing the natural, inborn right to pursue goods or services is dramatically different from proclaiming an entitlement to goods or services; this is the difference between the U. S. Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration; this is the difference between freedom and slavery.

Switching away from the UN, in 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into existence. The ICC is headquartered at The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC was created by the Rome Statute, a treaty that was ratified into law in 2002. The ICC is not a formal part of the UN, however it is designed to work in synthesis with the UN. The ICC claims jurisdiction over four broad areas of crimes: “war crimes”, “genocide”, “crimes against humanity”, and the “crime of aggression”; these crimes can be defined very broadly.

The ICC claims the jurisdiction to try American citizens for supposed crimes committed on American soil in a world court! This is no different than when the British declared their (supposed) authority to try American colonists for “crimes” committed in America in a British court in Great Britain; that was a part of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that led to the American Revolution!

It was also during 1944 that the Bretton Woods conference was held. The conference was officially called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference and was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The top American representative at this conference was none other than Jewish communist Harry Dexter White. The British were represented by well-known socialist economist and homosexual John Maynard Keynes. The Bretton Woods conference created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

To be blunt, the World Bank exists to take money from self-sufficient countries and give it to Third World countries in the form of “loans” that will never be repaid; the World Bank is international socialism. An international currency known as the “bancor” was talked about at this conference, but the world was not yet ready for such open globalization.

There is also the European Union model to consider. In post-WWII Europe there was a drive for international unity; this is a very unwise concept when one considers the ethnic, cultural, religious, and legal theory differences of the different nations, not to mention the history of war between many of them during the last five centuries.

The European Coal and Steel Community (1952) led to the European Economic Community (1957). The European Economic Community was commonly called the Common Market. In 1993, the European Union (EU) became a legal reality. The Treaty of Lisbon became law in 2009 and further strengthened the powers of the European Union.

The EU came into being gradually, not in one agreement. One could say that the EU is an example of Fabian principles applied to international organizations.

I, and many American patriots, believe that the Unites States of America is likely being slowly led down the road to a planned EU style union of the countries of North America. In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into legal effect. There also was the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) that was founded in 2005 by the USA, Canada, and Mexico. The SPP concerned itself with a variety of issues including trade, border security, and pandemic planning. There is talk among patriots of potential government plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway running from Mexico to Canada; the failed Trans Texas Corridor highway plan was most likely a part of this system.

I would recommend everyone read the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Arms Trade Treaty, and the 1961 U.S. State Department document Freedom from War to understand the treacherous UN through their own documents. The anti-UN books The United Nations Exposed by William F. Jasper, Inside The United Nations by Steve Bonta, and Global Gun Grab by William Norman Grigg are worth reading if one desires a more in depth knowledge of UN history and crimes than this brief essay has given you.

You might also find it enlightening to look up the documentary film Katanga The Untold Story that was produced in the 1960s. It is the story, narrated be a U.S. Congressman, of how the UN backed (with military aid) the communist government of the Congo in it’s violent, rape filled war of subjugation of the peaceful, free market, province of Katanga that had seceded from the Congo in order to preserve their pro-Christian, pro-Western democratically elected government.

The 20th century saw a powerful drive for global government. In addition to the global organizations covered in this chapter, the Cold War threat of nuclear destruction was used to frighten people into desiring world peace at any cost. All globalization is achieved at the expense of national sovereignty and human liberties. Globalization destroys the culture and the principles of free government cherished by Americans. All globalization must be opposed by freemen.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

 

The Statue of Liberty versus the Statute of Liberty, Expanded Edition

 

(Note: This is an expanded version of the 12th essay of my March 2016 book Putnam Liberty Notes)

This essay may seem a tad edgy to some. I am going to point out the difference between the Statue of Liberty that stands in New York harbor, and the Statute of Liberty (the U.S. Constitution).

The Statue of Liberty was given to America by France in the second half of the 19th century. The Founders were long dead when the Statue was dedicated in 1886. The Statue depicts a woman with a torch, possibly the Roman goddess Libertas. The Statue and Ellis Island are the symbols of immigration to the U.S.A. All of my ancestors immigrated before Ellis Island was made a federal immigrant processing center, and before the erection of the Statue. As such, I have no emotional connection to the Statue. The poem on the Statue that begs the world to send her (America) the “tired”, “poor”, “huddled masses”, “homeless”, and “wretched refuse” was written by a Jewess named Emma Lazarus.

The Statute of Liberty is the United States Constitution. The Statute was given us by our own countrymen. After years of warfare, America was victorious over Britain. We established a free republic, a government bound by laws –not a democracy. The legal embodiment of this was the U.S. Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1789.

The U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights appended to it in 1791) established a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, set up representative democracy as a guard against mob rule, and secured the rights of the citizens. The Constitution also allocated the power to control immigration to the federal/national/central government.

Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to: “Establish a uniform rule of Naturalization”.

Congress did establish this uniform rule in 1790 with a single paragraph law; this law was revised and expanded in 1795. In both acts, citizenship was limited to those who were a “free white person”. They also used the 1792 militia act to ensure that only free white males were to serve in the state militias.

As further proof of the Founder’s viewpoint, in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine stated the following: “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America”.

America was founded by European peoples, primarily Protestant Europeans from the British Isles and Western Europe. Whether one views this as good, bad, or neither here nor there –it is reality. (I view it as quite good).

Americans have the legal and moral right to restrict entry of foreigners into our country. Just as a man has the right to control who is allowed into his home, the national family may control who is allowed entry into our national home, our territory. The principle is the same.

Without amending the Constitution we could, temporarily or permanently, open our borders to every human on earth –without regard to race, religion, health issues or criminal background. On the other end of the scale, we could forever close our borders to all immigrants. Both options would be legal; the first would also be an act of national suicide.

Illegal immigration, primarily of Spanish speaking Mexicans and Central Americans crossing our southern border, has been a problem in the U.S.A. for several decades. The last two years have seen this issue come to the national forefront, in large part because of the wave of “children” immigrants in 2014, the Alt-Right’s internet activities, and the Trump campaign.

Many of these immigrants do not desire to assimilate, and some public schools now have classes for students who do not speak English! As a patriot suspicious of governmental authority, I do not support public schools or driver’s licenses for anyone –much less for immigrants who will not even speak our language!

My readers, have you not heard of “Aztlan” and the Reconquista? America has a major problem on its hands. Mexicans are not just looking for a good paying job when they cross the border to the U.S. The U.S.A. is, right now, losing control of the American Southwest.

Moving on to the events in Europe in the last year and a half, it is just as dark over there. The U.S. and Israeli approved and funded wars in the Middle East, and especially the attempt to oust Bashar Assad (the democratic leader of a secular state) have created great turmoil and a large number of refugees.

As the secular regime of Assad slowly crumbles, the Islamic fundamentalist rebels –many of whom want Sharia law- are taking over large parts of Syria and Iraq. This was no doubt planned, as it also likely was when Libya was toppled.

The European Union is pressing its member states to admit large numbers of (usually Islamic) ethnic Middle Easterners to their country. This is madness! As of late December 2015, at least 1 million “migrants” had entered Europe from the Middle East and west Asia. Let that sink in, One Million.

These Middle Easterners cannot assimilate, even if they and we both desired for them to do so. Genetics determine mental capabilities, physical attributes, and emotional makeup. Back when people lived on farms, they knew that there are differences in breeds of animals, even ones that can cross breed (such as the many breeds of dogs). But modern sensitive Americans have forgotten this.

The “proposition nation/civic nationalism” garbage is a lie, and always has been. The proposition nation fantasy is that if we all speak the same language, agree to the same political/government ideas (aka the proposition), and work together to make money –then all will be well. Wrong. The proposition nation fantasy ignores three important things: (1) genetic differences, (2) that nations originally signified a people group, not a geographical area under one government and (3) that counties have usually been based around an ethnic group/nation.

I tried to swallow my white racial consciousness and believe the proposition nation lie back when I was reading libertarian material and attending a church with an interracial couple, but two years ago I could stomach it no more and I embraced White Nationalism. This is why I wrote my ten page essay “Multiculturalism: Death of the American People” as the 28th essay of my recent little book As America Fades.

Europe has a right to remain European, just as China has right to remain Chinese and Russia has a right to remain Russian. Changing the ethnic makeup of Europe will inevitably change its culture until it is no longer Europe. The land will still be there, but the people, culture, and republican governmental traditions will be gone –perhaps forever. This also applies to the U.S.A.

Americans need to consider the 14 Words. The oft quoted 14 Words are the following: “We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children”.

The 14 Words do not speak of hate, slavery, genocide, or repression of any sort; they only proclaim our right to exist! The most basic right of a person, or group or people, is the right to exist. For those racially conscious, it is obvious that I slyly referenced the 14 Words in my July 4th blog post this year, showing that the Founders incorporated White Nationalist elements into the Declaration of Independence.

I am reminded of Charles Martel, which means “Charles the Hammer”. Europe was under siege from Islamic invaders in the 8th century. Not only had Islamic princes conquered much of the Middle East and west Asia, Spain had fallen to the Muslims!

The Frankish (Germanic) prince Charles Martel gathered an army to resist them. At the Battle of Poitiers in France in 732, Martel, outnumbered by perhaps 3 to 1, stopped the Muslim advance; Martel’s infantry repulsed the Islamic cavalry, inflicting massive casualties on them.

Many consider Martel’s victory the turning point in the attempted Islamic conquest of Europe. Had “The Hammer” not stopped these Muslims, they might have succeeded in conquering much of Europe –destroying much of Christianity, classical civilization, and the genetic code of our ancestors.

Europe once fought to stop the forces of invading Islamic armies. Now she opens her doors to Islamic refugees –who will accomplish the same goal given enough time.

If Europe and America do not want to allow immigrants to change their countries forever, if Europe and America have the will to survive, we are going to have to say NO. We need to remember the Founders and the 14 Words.

The Statue of Liberty and the Statute of Liberty: there is no comparison between the two.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

 

 

The Words of the 2nd Amendment and Various State Guarantees

 

In my essay Thoughts on Small Arms and Liberty, which was the 3rd essay of my March 2016 book Putnam Liberty Notes and also was reprinted as the 23rd essay of my August 2016 book As America Fades, I discussed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment from the Founder’s viewpoint. In my sequel essay More Thoughts on Small Arms and Liberty, which was published as the 24th essay of As America Fades, I took the subject a somewhat different direction –that of basic firearms safety and personal preparation for tyranny or chaos.

I am going to take this 2nd Amendment essay a totally different direction. This essay is going to examine the words of the 2nd Amendment, and that of several state constitutions. For brevity’s sake, I shall abbreviate the phrase Right to Keep and Bear Arms as RKBA.

The 2nd Amendment was ratified along with nine others to form what is (unofficially) termed the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. It, along with the other nine amendments, were ratified on December 15, 1791. The text of the 2nd Amendment is the following:

“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”.

It is clear. The people, the citizens of the states, have a right to own and carry arms –a right that is not to be infringed upon whatsoever. One part of the reason for this was to maintain a state militia –which could defend its borders from marauding Indians –and an out of control national government.

Interestingly, Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the verb “bear” 19 definitions. The third definition is the following “To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat”. Bearing arms in a coat sounds like carrying a concealed weapon.

Also of import is the term “arms”. The first definition of arms in Webster’s 1828 dictionary is: “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body”. It was written broadly enough to cover all conventional arms such as firearms and edged weapons –and also body armor.

Let us now consider some of the state RKBA statues. The original (1816) and current (1851) constitutions of my home state of Indiana both have an RKBA clause. The original (no longer in effect) 1816 constitution states the following:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State; and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power”.

The current (1851 with amendments) constitution of Indiana dropped the military restrictions and simply states the following:

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State”.

Wyoming’s constitutional guarantee, enacted in 1889, states the following:

“The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied”.

Montana’s constitutional guarantee, enacted in 1889 and kept by the 1972 constitution, states the following:

“The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons”.

The state guarantees of the RKBA are sometimes perhaps clearer worded that the 2nd Amendment. With the above quoted statues from Indiana, Montana, and Wyoming, it is clear that there is both an individual right and a collective (aka militia duty) right.

   While it would perhaps be stunning to modern urbanized Americans, the private ownership of all types of small arms for both personal defense and militia duty was not only common place, but legally protected when the U.S.A. and the majority of its states were set up. Not all state RKBA provisions mentioned the militia, and some specifically allowed the regulation of the carrying of concealed weapons.

It appears that the first restrictions of the RKBA were state laws against concealed carry. (I support the right to both open and conceal carry). Several states –such as Montana, Wyoming, and Kentucky- currently allow open carry of handguns without a permit, but require a permit for concealed carry. Indiana, in violation of its constitution, requires a permit for both.

In fact, it used to be common for gentlemen –not just frontiersmen- to be armed in public. For example, have you ever seen paintings of George Washington, as the 1796 one by Gilbert Stuart, showing Washington wearing private/civilian clothes –and a sword!

Regarding history, a few years ago I read Clayton E. Cramer’s 2006 book Armed America The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie. Cramer’s Armed America gives an in-depth coverage of firearms usage, ownership, and laws from Colonial America to the American Revolution period to the early Republic. It is worth reading, and I may end up rereading and reviewing it here on this blog in the future.

About a decade ago, I read and greatly enjoyed David T. Hardy’s little book Origins and Development of the Second Amendment.  I liked it enough to refer back to it a few times over the years. It is a 95 page, hardback work published by Blacksmith Corporation of Chino Valley, Arizona back in 1986. As it is now long out of print, I do not intend to review it on this blog, but used copies might still be located for those of my readers who are interested.

But I have ignored the primary issue of the matter. That issue is the origin of rights! While morally existent, the right to life, liberty, and property are little more than a meaningless fantasy without the means to defend them. If government passed a law requiring a permit to breath air, would that make breathing without a permit wrong? Of course not!

Governments have no authority to remove, or even infringe on, God given rights. God grants rights to man; government laws such as the 2nd Amendment and the state RKBA guarantees quoted in this essay are merely an acknowledgment of a preexisting God given right. The government is not a god; it does not dispense rights.

That being said, wicked governments do attempt to infringe upon our God given rights, viewing our rights as a mere privilege granted by the state and subject to its whims and regulations. This is illegitimate.

When you have a government that acts to restrict –or even abolish- one’s God given right to own and carry firearms without any governmental restriction, what does one do? I suppose that the answer to that depends on one’s religious and political beliefs, the level of repression, and upon the tactical situation one finds himself in.

My personal stance is that I have complied with the unconstitutional laws, but I will go no farther. All of my firearms are legal by current Federal and Indiana state laws. I do have a current Indiana “License To Carry Handgun” issued by the ISP.

But I will go no farther. If laws are passed requiring registration or surrender of firearms, or certain types of firearms, I will not comply. A freeman must draw a line somewhere, a line that he does not cross. If the government becomes tyrannical enough, and enough men still consider themselves free, things get “interesting”.

One cannot escape Federal laws, only obey or resist. State laws are a little different. If one lives in a state where one cannot own certain types of firearms, high capacity magazines, or carry a handgun in public –perhaps one should consider moving to a freer state?

Though I was born in the hospital in Paoli, Indiana and have lived my entire thirty three years here in rural Orange County, I have considered moving to a state with more freedom, including recognizing legal open carry without a permit required. Basically, the less people in a state, the freer the laws –in regards to firearms and other things.

I hope this essay has given patriots and liberty advocates some information to consider concerning our rights, and the government’s legal assault on them.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

 

Hillary’s Eunuchs at the Window?

In the last week, Hillary Clinton’s rumored health concerns have become so obvious that the mainstream media is reporting on them. But first, let us consider her recent remarks on those her progressive type hate.

Late last week, Hillary proclaimed that half of Trump supporters were “irredeemable” and a “basket of deplorables”. They were this because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -you name it”. She said this while addressing an LGBT audience. (On a side note, what would she think of people like me who hold that Trump is a liberal and borderline establishment candidate?)

Apparently, Hillary holds that white Americans who believe in traditional (and Biblical) gender roles, do not approve of sexual perversion, and do not wish to see their country turned into a socialist  Third World cesspool with pockets of jihadis are “irredeemable”. In a sense it was nice to hear her say that, just as it was nice to hear Barbara Lerner Spectre’s quote about Jews leading Europe into a multicultural mode; they are now openly saying what patriots have been warning of for years. Now that the enemy is openly telling the media what they believe, maybe a few Americans will wake up to the peril we face.

There was a recent hack of former Secretary of State Colin Luther Powell’s emails. Some of them are critical of Trump, and there are rumors that he might consider endorsing Hillary. Would not it be interesting if this NYC born, Yiddish speaking, mulatto, CFR member, former General for the empire’s army, and George W. Bush administration official endorsed Hillary Clinton for president?

But now on to the subject of this essay: Hillary’s health and a potential replacement for her. By the time I finish this article, the title will be self-explanatory. (No, Bill is not one of the eunuchs!)

Hillary has been battling coughing fits for a while. On September 11, she had to leave a 9/11 memorial service in NYC. A video showed her unable to enter her van, and being placed inside by her Secret Service protective detail. Rather than rush her to the hospital, they took her to Chelsea’s apartment. Supposedly she became overheated and dehydrated. She has claimed that she had been previously diagnosed with pneumonia, and felt overheated at the 9/11 ceremony.

This could be the tip of the iceberg. She fell as Secretary of State, and has had a deep vein thrombosis and a concussion. Some physicians have observed video of her, and concluded that she may have a neurological disorder, such as Parkinson’s. And this is not even mentioning that she is 68 years old. A recent video has also emerged of her having what appears to be a mini-seizure with head, neck, and shoulder convulsion while standing in a group of people and then trying to go on like nothing happened!

Furthermore, regarding her 9/11 “dehydration” Bill Clinton was recently videoed as saying that: “because frequently, not frequently, rarely, but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened where she got severely dehydrated…”  How vacillating, how Slick Willie, how what is the meaning of is-ish.

Lay aside her anti-American and liberty trashing positions, and that a woman is arguably Constitutionally ineligible to be the U.S. president, Hillary is obviously not in good enough health to endure the strain of high office.

A former DNC chairman, Don Fowler, has publically stated that the DNC needs to have contingency plans in place to select a new Presidential nominee in the event that Hillary steps aside for reason of her ailments! Talk about an “October Surprise” scenario, but a month early!

I wonder what drives a wealthy, well-educated old woman in ill health who has already risen to great political power under Obama to push her failing body this far in an attempt to grab the ultimate prize –the White House. Is it lust for power? Image? To take the last step in the feminist revolution? Or maybe something even darker, a crazed desire to destroy what remnant of good there is in America?

Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be incarnate evil. From her feminist rejection of God’s place for women to her legal career to her partnership with Bill in Arkansas to the Mena drug smuggling allegations to her term as first lady to her time as Obama’s Secretary of State to her laughter at toppling and killing Quadifi –Hillary is totally morally and philosophically unfit to be anywhere near political power. And this is not even mentioning the allegations some have made of her concerning her alleged youthful connection to communism or Dolly Kyle’s statements concerning Hillary’s “personal sexual preference”.

To think that after a lifetime of working for causes to destroy America, Hillary would get this close to the figurehead of power –the presidency- and then have her health spiral downward until she recused herself, became incapacitated, or died- would be the ultimate burn to her.

Wait a minute. Does not the Bible tell us of a case like this many years ago? The Old Testament records the story of a wicked woman named Jezebel. Jezebel is even now a synonym for a very wicked woman. Who was Jezebel, what did she do, and how did she die?

Jezebel was a Zidonian. She was married to Jewish king Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, the upper kingdom comprising the northern ten tribes, after Israel and Judah split into two kingdoms after Solomon’s death. Ahab was an idolater, and married the idolatress Jezebel, who was the daughter of a heathen king. It is also recorded that Jezebel “painted her face” –obviously an act of vanity.

Jezebel is notable for several reasons. It sometimes appears that she was even more evil than her husband. She commanded or otherwise engineered the slaughter of the true prophets of the Lord, though Elijah and a remnant escaped; as she did this, she simultaneously fed the prophets of Baal from her table (see 1st Kings 18).

Later Elijah, the prophet of God, confronted king Ahab “for his wickedness in the sight of the LORD”, and proclaimed judgment on him, his posterity, and his wife Jezebel -who had “stirred up” his wicked actions.

After this, Ahab humbled himself before God, but was killed in battle. God appointed Elijah to anoint Jehu king of Israel, and to bring wrath upon the house of Ahab. This culminated with Jehu personally killing Ahab in battle, and then riding up to the palace.

Jehu called out to Jezebel and those with her, and a few of her eunuchs came to the window. At the request of Jehu these eunuchs threw their mistress Jezebel out the window to her death. She was trodden under foot, and the dogs licked up her blood.

Could it be that the true powerbrokers behind the Democratic Party are preparing to have their front men (eunuchs) metaphorically throw Hillary out the window? Perhaps this evil woman’s time is done?

I do not worry about who will be “installed” as President after the elections this coming November. I say installed for several reasons.

First, I hold that the government and media have foisted upon us a basically rigged two party system in which hard core patriots and true outsiders are, for practical purposes, barred. Second, I hold electronic voting machines produce a vote count that cannot be independently verified -allowing elections to be stolen. The third opinion will be the most shocking to my readers.

The third reason is that, unlike most professing Christians, I actually believe that God is absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men. I hold that all actions of man, and his governments, fall under the control of God. Furthermore, God has declared the end from the beginning (Isiah 46:10) before he laid the foundation of the world. Proverbs 21:1 informs us that: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will”. God even hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 7:13), so that he might glorify himself in his overthrow.

God is perfectly righteous and cannot sin or tempt man to sin. He may overrule the will of fallen man at any time for any reason that he chooses. Thus, all evil that occurs is totally the fault of the individual, but also restrained by the decree of God.

In short, a wicked leader may not sit upon his throne –or in the Oval Office- without the consent of Almighty God. Evil leaders are perhaps sometimes raised up as a punishment to an evil people –which America now most certainly is. Furthermore, there are times, such as Jehu’s destruction of Ahab and Jezebel, when God approves of a people deposing and destroying their evil and tyrannical leader.

Whoever takes the seat in the Oval Office next January, I am not afraid. God’s eternal purpose will be accomplished in this, whatever that may be.

So, do you think Hillary’s eunuchs are at the window?

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.