Dear Concerned Citizen,

Principle photography for "MOLON LABE -- How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom" is complete. Thank you for helping make this possible.

On the 21st we interviewed DAVID R. GILLIE, Director, Montana-America Institute and on the 18th we interviewed PATRICK J. BUCHANAN, author and political analyst. Clips of these two new interviews, plus all the other interviews, can be screened at http://youtu.be/Ay7Thif3UOQ

The other interviews include radio host/author, ALEX JONES; Senatorial Candidate, JACK ROONEY; EDWIN VIEIRA, JR., author/Constitutional attorney; LARRY PRATT, President of Gun Owners of America, Oath Keepers Founder, STEWART RHODES; radio host/pastor, CHUCK BALDWIN; author/Freedom Force International Founder, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN; and former Presidential Candidate/Congressman, RON PAUL.

Some of the people we originally advertised would be in the film have disappointed us by not responding in a timely manner. That's okay, because we have the talent and expertise to tell the story of Edwin Vieira's mind-boggling book -- The Sword and Sovereignty -- without them. So check out the new trailer -- your screen credit should be in this one if it was not in the previous one.

We now start editing, what's known as post-production. This is where all the pieces of the movie are painstakingly integrated into a cogent whole and music is added. We will still need donations to get us through post-production, so please go to Click to view link and do what you can. An Executive Producer screen credit is still available in the main titles so if you have the means, consider this: where else could you get your name on a RON PAUL - PAT BUCHANAN film? You couldn't, especially not in Hollywood.

Again, thank you for all you have done to make this important movie possible. A special thanks to Stewart Rhodes, Pastor Baldwin, Liberty Fellowship, Freedom Force, Alex Jones, Walter Reddy, Rosie Haas, David Callihan, Lawrence Hunter and the Oath Keepers membership for their continuous help in helping promote this production. And last, but in no way least, thank you Elias Alias, Diana Zoppa, Brian Rockey and Carol Snyder, my wonderful key Associate Producers. You have made my life easier and miracles happen.

Sincerely,


JAMES JAEGER,
Producer/Director
800-576-2001


-------------------
P.S. Don't forget, there are all sorts of screen credits available if you still want to get in on the action or upgrade your existing credit. Just go to Click to view link and donate. And don't forget to forward this email to your friends, associates and those who are on the verge of getting it.

Dr. Vierra's book appears to change everything in the current discussion of gun control. I plan to make others in my political organizations aware of his new book and his conclusions. Thank you, DB!

Progress Report of 16 March 2013

Dear Concerned Citizen:

The production of MOLON LABE -- How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom is coming along nicely, in no small part because of your support and contributions.

Friday we interviewed radio host, author and documentary filmmaker, ALEX JONES and Thursday we interviewed DR. EDWIN VIEIRA, JR., author of The Sword and Sovereignty -- the book that has inspired this movie.

A few weeks ago we interviewed LARRY PRATT, President of Gun Owners of America and just prior to that we interviewed Oath keepers Founder, STEWART RHODES and radio host/pastor, CHUCK BALDWIN. In December we interviewed author and Freedom Force International Founder, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN, and former presidential candidate/congressman, RON PAUL.

Needless to say, it's getting quite exciting. This important movie on the Second Amendment is featuring a wonderful spectrum of experts who will impart their wisdom and understanding of the issues.

Interviews still in progress are PAT BUCHANAN (first week of April), Senatorial Candidate, JACK ROONEY and former Governor JESSE VENTURA. Lastly we are still in discussion with ED ASNER's agent and several other celebrities, who we will announce if they materialize.

A new extended trailer is in production right now and clips of all of these experts will be featured. In the meantime, the most current trailer is posted at http://youtu.be/0C-W7Mwq5Gk

Your screen credit may be listed in the new trailer. If not, more recent donations will be acknowledged in the new extended trailer. Progress reports will keep you informed.

Lastly, we are piloting a new marketing plan entitled "Grass-Roots Distribution Network". This plan could by-pass the mainstream media if enough citizens participated in it. If you have time, please review it and let me know what you think. It's at Click to view link

Again, thank you for all you have done to make MOLON LABE possible. A special thanks to Oath Keepers -- guardians of the nation's Constitution -- for the wonderful piece they sent out to help get word out about this production. I join everyone at Matrix Productions in saluting ELIAS ALIAS, STEWART RHODES and the OATH KEEPER MEMBERSHIP for taking responsibility for this important mission. Thank you.

Sincerely,


JAMES JAEGER,
Producer/Director
800-576-2001


P.S. There is a choice EXECUTIVE PRODUCER screencredit remaining in the MAIN titles, so if you have the means, where else could you get your name on a feature film staring RON PAUL, PAT BUCHANAN and JESSE VENTURA that will be seen by millions? Don't wait too long otherwise someone else is sure to nab this screencredit. Donate at Click to view link

TSA - Finally Did Something Right!
by James Jaeger

The TSA's decision to permit pocket knives on jets is a good idea. Any would-be hijacker will have to think twice before pulling out his box cutter lease he pull-in a cabin full of angry, knife-wielding passengers. Maybe American Airlines should change their motto to: "An armed airplane is a safe airplane." This is the same idea behind the Second Amendment. An armed populace is necessary for the safety of a free state. In other words, weapons in the hands of citizens act as a deterrent against tyranny in government as well as hijackers in airplanes. But it's amazing how some don't seem to grasp this simple concept. These reason-challenged creatures think "authorities" should remove all weapons from everyone. One dolt on CNN just this morning, stated: "Hey you don't want any pocket knives on board planes because that's dangerous." What is it about this mentality? Is their DNA missing nucleotides? They actually think people with criminal intent are going to obey anti-knife and anti-gun prohibitions. Actually they don't think this. This mentality has something more troubling going on. This mentality has no faith in their fellow human beings. Such say things like: 'disarming everyone is the only way to make us safe' but what this mentality is really saying is 'you can't trust people to provide for their own safety because they are incompetent.' If this what they're saying, isn't this arrogant beyond belief? The idea that WE THE PEOPLE aren't capable of providing our own security, that we're babies. That the police, the state, will take care of us at all times and on all planes? It's high time we recognize the gun-controllers and anti-Second freaks for what they are: arrogant elitists that hold the common man in contempt. If that's not the very definition of a bigot, what is? Click to view link

Government schools, run by psychiatrists, have been systematically expanding the catalog of mental "illnesses" and emptying the loony bins to save the state's money. Without the expense of housing the loonies, the shrink's cronies in Big Pharma get to drug the hell out of the nation's kids and THEN place them onto psychiatric lists so, at some future date, they won't be able to purchase arms. In the meantime, loonies running all over the nation shooting people helps out with the gun-control lobby's agenda as this provides the Cultural Marxist-left with the sad, sob stories they need to sucker the lumpin American public into accepting further infringement of the Second Amendment.

You don't hear any of this from the mainstream media as they are in on it with the government. The Church of Scientology has been complaining and suing Big Pharma for decades, but this is, of course, why they are a "cult."

The goal is a one-world government.

But before this can happen the Globalists have to disarm America -- like they have disarmed the idiots in Europe. This will never happen in America because a large percentage of the 100 million Americans with guns that will yell "molon labe" and love nothing more than to have a constitutional excuse to storm the nation's capitol and massacre maybe 50 or 100 congressmen in office or after their terms. It doesn't have to come to this, and as a Libertarian I disdain all violence, but if the government creates any more rogue "laws" it could set off an American Holocaust.

Of course, pressured in to this corner, the gun-control lobby will continue to slowly "boil the frog," but now people are aware of the "boil the frog" strategy so the only counter-strategy for them is complete intolerance to any more compromises and rogue gun-control "laws". The U.S. Constitution is every American's license to "keep and bear arms" where ever and whenever they see fit. The gun-control lobby has already enacted tens of thousands of "laws" that many feel must be repealed or they will inevitably be ignored -- especially by people like Suzanna Hupp who had her parents wiped out by a loony gun-man. It's hard to imagine people like her obeying any more gun "laws" that prohibit carrying in restaurants, movie theaters or where ever the need for self defense dictates. Suzanne relates how obeying a rogue Texas "law" infringed her Constitutional right to "keep and bear" thus causing the death of her parents in a "gun-free zone". As a former congresswoman herself, she assigns responsibility to the congressmen that pass "laws" creating these "gun-free zones." Given Hupp's loss, and the many others who have suffered similar losses, shouldn't the congressmen that have violated their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution (and Second Amendment as part thereof) be voted out and/or be brought to justice in some way, such as through impeachment and/or class action law suits?

Other than rare exceptions such as FOX NEW's Megyn Kelly, the mainstream media is totally duplicitous in the criminal murders at the high schools. Not only do they exploit these heinous crimes as "entertainment news", they fail to interview, or even mention, the hundreds, if not thousands of parents that feel exactly like Suzanna Hupp. Instead of representing how these parents really feel -- i.e., raped by congressmen who made their kids sitting ducks in anti-Constitutional gun-free zones -- the mainstream media almost universally cherry picks parents that are willing to offer interviews that align with the gun-control lobby's mission of disarmament. This is a crime of omission and these news organizations should have their broadcast licenses revoked for failing to serve the public's interest in security.

See Suzanna's unbelievable story at http://youtu.be/7q5PBxCI684

@Jon Roland

A very well reasoned, and I must say, Constitutional as I understand the intent of the document, post. Also fits pretty well with Walter Block's writings about private producton of security, the modern libertarian notion of anarchy, (even though the use does not really fit the definition) and the nineteenth century conception of liberal.

Edwin has done much good work in this book and elsewhere, but he tends to make the mistake that a "militia" is illegal if there is no statute that specifically authorizes it.

Is it illegal to speak without a statute authorizing it? Is the First Amendment necessary to make it legal, or was it legal before the First Amendment was ratified?

Similarly for all the other rights: press, assembly, petition, religion, due process, jury, just compensation, equal protection, etc.

The basic error is the presumption that "anything that is not permitted is forbidden." That's not the way our legal legacy works. The proper presumption is that "anything that is not forbidden or restricted is permitted" and "there must be a specific delegation of authority to an official to forbid or restrict anything". Public action defaults to permission in the absence of authority to restrict them. If there is no authority to restrict militia, and there isn't for any purpose other than to enhance its effectiveness, then any official regulation that does not make militia stronger is unconstitutional. Honest men may disagree on how best to make it stronger, but virtually all gun control laws do the opposite, and therefore cannot be constitutional.

The Framers did envisage that there would be state and local militia statutes, and that state officials would appoint or provide for the election of militia commanders. But if they neglect to do so, then that duty defaults back to the people, just as it would if, for example, local officials all abandoned their offices and left the people with no officials on the job. In such a situation the people just have to follow any law there is to replace them, probably by conducting special elections. Such bootstrapping is how government has had to get started at the outset. The very first elections were just done by volunteers at their own expense, before there were any "laws" to provide guidance, or any public funds to pay for it.

"Militia", properly understood, is actually older than the human species. Our hominid ancestors organized themselves into defensive units we can recognize as militia. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and various monkeys still do. Most social species have at least a rudiment of militia. In a sense, "militia duty" is the same as the duty that comes with the social contract. It is the expression of the social contract in situations that involve defense against a common threat.

Edwin Vieira responded in CAPS:

] Edwin has done much good work in this book and elsewhere, but he
] tends to make the mistake that a "militia" is illegal if there is
] no statute that specifically authorizes it.

] NOWHERE IN THE SWORD AND SOVEREIGNTY (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) DO I TAKE THE POSITION JON ATTRIBUTES TO ME IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.

This comment is not just, or primarily, about this book, but about how you have treated this point in several things you have written, including what you just wrote below.

] A "MILITIA" (IF IT CAN BE CALLED THAT) FORMED WITHOUT A STATUTE, OR NOT RATIFIED LATER BY A STATUTE, CANNOT BE ONE OF OR PART OF "THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES", AND THEREFORE CANNOT CLAIM ANY SPECIFICALLY CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS.

That brings us to the nub of my objection. The "militia of the several states" is the people of those states, in their capacity as defenders of one another, regardless of their state of organization or lack thereof. They are militia just by being alive and here. So of course so is any subset of them a "part" of it. My objection is to your insistence on treating militia as some kind of organization. That is not, essentially, what the concept is all about. There can be militia organizations, that we can call "units", "companies", "brigades", etc., depending on the number in the organization, but they are "militia" as long as they are not enemies of the communities. Just standing there, not breaking any laws or hurting anyone, is militia.

It is not being "authorized" by statute that makes something "constitutional". It is constitutional just by being something for which there is no constitutional authority to forbid, such as speech, press, assembly, petition, religion, etc. Anything that cannot be constitutionally prohibited has constitutional status.

Now another issue arises if a militia unit tries to enforce a law, such as by conducting an investigation, making a custodial arrest, and delivering the accused to a court of competent jurisdiction for arraignment. Just as the law in every state allows for civilians to do those things, and make arrests for felonies and more serious misdemeanors, they can also gather into a militia unit to do that, and when they do their authority does not come from some "constitutional status" but from the particular law they are enforcing, which confers the authority of law on all those who enforce it, regardless of any office they may or may not hold , if the law does not explicitly restrict who may enforce it.

Similarly, if they respond to some other threat, such as invasion, their authority for doing that comes not from the Constitution but from the threat. That could be be crime, disease, disinformation, or a natural disaster.

] BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING "ILLEGAL", ROOT AND BRANCH. HOWEVER, SUCH A NON-STATUTORY "MILITIA" COULD VERY WELL BE ILLEGAL, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPENDING UPON ITS ACTIVITIES,

But it would be any injurious activities that might be illegal, not the mere assembly of the members, especially for mere organizing and training. Don't conflate these things. Your treatment of the subject lends itself to be taken that way.

] AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE AT BEST EXTRA-LEGAL IF IT WERE FORMED IN A STATE WHICH HAD A PROPER STATUTORY/CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA FOR WHICH ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NON-STATUTORY "MILITIA" WERE ELIGIBLE.

It is a mistreatment of the subject to associate "extra legality" with lack of statutory authorization of official direction. You could say that about any assembly of people to collectively exercise their rights. But when you say it is "extra legal" for a bunch of people to, say, get together and form a political party, you suggest there is something sinister about it. Technically it may be "extra legal" but why describe it with such a term if your intent is not to delegitimize something in the public mind that deserves to be celebrated.

I urge you to ponder deeply on the points I am making here. They are not mere quibbles. Think about how your words might be twisted by clever adversaries, and avoid words that are susceptible to that.

DB: Mr.Vieira speaks of "the Militia of the several States." I have finally realized that the General Government nationalized the Guard of our several States. So, instead of a Militia of the several States, we have the National Guard run by the Federal Government. When did the Feds nationalize the States Guard?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Hard to keep track.

Dr Fun, That is the wildest rant that I have ever tried to read thru. Some believable references to some of your more important assertions might make interesting reading.

Dr Fun, That is the wildest rant that I have ever tried to read thru. Some believable references to some of your more important assertions might make interesting reading.

The problem is one of racketeering and organized crime. Stemming from the people's illogical capitulation... to the foolish notion of trading away the hours and days of their lives - their very substance - for the Jewish 'money masters' [their slavers'] counterfeit 'company scrip'.

The one that's erroneously called a 'dollar'... but reads a 'note'... with not even a 'promise to pay'.

Hence... We, the People... has astonishingly consented to its enslavement.
And, by extension, have they willingly become criminal co-conspirators in perpetuating a massive fraud upon the entire world!

I ordered the CD that contains The Sword and Sovereignty from Amazon so I can fully understand Mr. Vieira's views on the 2nd Amendment. Is there any reason this book isn't available for Kindle?

The thing I don't understand (but hopefully will after I read the book), is why Mr. Vieira says the Second Amendment was not about an individual's right to bear arms. Aren't all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights about INDIVIDUAL rights? Did I miss something?

I always thought that the Bill of Rights had its roots in Natural Law and the right to self-defense was a key part of Natural Law. My understanding was that the 2nd Amendment enshrined that right (not granted it).

So I'm curious to read Mr. Vieira's line of thinking.

Also, on another note (If Mr. Vieira is reading this), I would have liked to purchase Pieces of Eight, but it is very expensive. Is there any possibility of releasing that in CD form or on the Kindle? Also, in the footer of your articles on newswithviews you have a link to Click to view link that does not work.

I have read much of Dr. Vierra's works since the '90's. Pieces of Eight, and his early tracts on real money have prominent places in my library. His work considers many aspects of a particular subject, and cannot be appreciated in a 30-second sound bite, nor a short interview, friendly as this one was. Hard to detail all supportive analysis herein. He makes this qualification during some of his answers. Instead of refusing to answer, he was accomodating. I am a big fan.

A practical approach to State secession will need to consider military logistics, gov't agency intercourse, federally claimed lands within the State, as well as border control without damaging interstate commerce, gold and silver as money when not even 1% of the population has any, etc.

There are many issues involved in secession. Practically speaking, it would be a monumental task, requiring cooperation from the other states.

And, how do you know this call for secession is not one of the elite meme's efforts to play into an establishment of newly created zones under FEMA control?

However, you cannot violate the right to contract. It involves the right to dis-contract, to renegotiate and/or to dissolve the agreement between the parties. Each State's admission to the union was a contract. The founding fathers established the principle of dissolution in the Declaration of Independence.

It is also important to remember that the current US government is not the Unites States for America. It is a foreign owned corporation. The States should formally recognize that the US corporate government is treasonous, and has overlayed the Constitution with statutory civil law.

The indiviudal states should nullify all acts since the Act of 1871, which established the corporate govt of DC, and take control of the federal government, which is inferior to that of the individual states. It is better that we kick out the foreign corporate gov't and to reaffirm our agreement under the Declaration of Independence with our sister states.

Thanks, DB. And, Dr. Vierra.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very good summary of this thread's discussion - and response. Thank you, Jeanna.

Abu

Excellent suggestion, as usual.

BM

Right on top of the real news, as usual.

DB

Thanks again for helping us see the world as it is, instead of how they want us to see it.

Dr. Vieira

Hat's off, and head bowed.

I would not presume to contradict Dr. Vieira's scholarship. However, for the Constitution to limit federal power the threat of secession must be real. To my mind the right of self-defense is absolute, so, if a militia is necessary to the action of the second amendment, then it is very close to worthless. If these two limits of the usefulness of the Constitution are true, then it is no better than a piece of tinder, whether it be for a regular fire, or a revolution.

Where the U.S.A. went wrong beyond the 2nd Amendment; was having the snitch & pedophile-rapist (when president of the Film Actors Guild), multi-adulterous, Treason-fomenting (Iran-Contra weapons for cocaine scandal), War Criminal, wife and political party swapping Ronald Reagan as president.

Who had the REX-84 program (FEMA camps) begun under a Traitor named Oliver North.

Nearly tripled the deficit having nothing to do with the collapse of the former U.S.S.R.. Wasted on Pentagon programs that still can't function as envisioned. Taking the country from being the #1 creditor nation in the world to the #1 debtor one in less than 8 years; while raising taxes 7 out of the 8 years in office.

Reagan provided billions of $'s in weapons to his "Freedom Fighters" Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Al-CIAda and Iran;now costing the country trillions of $'s and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers being killed, maimed and committing suicide against these relabeled "Terrorists".

Reagan and the most convicted Felons to operate his administration committed Trreason with the Iran Contra scandal, that should have had them swinging from the ends of ropes; Wehrmacht soldiers were hung for lesser offenses. Bringing in cocaine that began the drug scrouge of American inner cities.Reagan also supported "Death Squads" in Guatemala and El-Salvador.

If the U.S. had followed through on the Carter Energy Policy, then it would already be operating on a grid of mass-transit using 2nd-3rd generation of alternative fuels and not beholden to M.E. or Canadian tar sands oil. The U.S. would lead the world in the desirable "green" technology jobs and not China.

Reagan gutted EPA regulations that allows the continued polluting of American air, land and water unabated. The lax Anti-Trust enforcement allowed the "Too Big to Fail" corporations to exist. The championing of deregulation spwaned the S&L bailouts and every other government handout culminating in the current QE and TARP bailouts today. The firing of the union FAA Air Traffic Controllers began the out-sourcing and off-shoring of American manufacturing.

Since no-one faced prosecution from the Reagan administration for their high crimes and misdomeaners, with the continued unpatriotic,immoral and unethical behavior over the past 30 plus years.

"Extreme Mental Cruelty" is what Reagan's 1st wife accused him of (whom he committed adultery with) resulting in his marrying a 3 month pregnant Nancy; that all debt-slave Americans and those who lost a loved one in the farce, ever-expanding War of Werror can utter this phrase too.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Gee, Dr. Fun, somehow we feel you wandered into the wrong website from, say ... the Democratic Underground. You want to sing the praises of Carter, you'll definitately find more sympathetic ears there or at the CIA-sponsored Daily Koz ...

Thanks DB for another insightful interview with Dr. Edwin Vieira. As many of the also insightful comments argue, I do not agree with every jot and tittle Click to view link coming from the pen of the good doctor. These two stand out:

"... then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere 'authoritarianism.' This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated."

"I believe that "secession" - the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance - is unconstitutional."

Click to view link

Check out this interview
I would like to share with your readers an Internet radio interview I did on May 14 with Dr. James H. Fetzer, a retired university professor who taught critical thinking, scientific logic, etc. for 35 years, the last 19 at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. He is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and host of 'The Real Deal,' his Internet radio program. You can listen by going to Click to view link, click on May, then scroll down to May 14, Steve Campbell - Activism in Colorado.

[ Click to view link ]

I suspect some will listen until they hear something they strongly disagree with and stop listening. To be fair, please listen to the entire interview to get the bigger picture and a balanced understanding of my thinking. We cover a wide range of issues.

On rethinking the interview, which was done extemporaneously by phone, I would revise my statement regarding solar, wind and geothermal energy, to cast it in a more favorable light. Also, regarding my remarks about Vladimir Putin, I've since run across new information that makes me doubt my earlier statement.

In addition, I recently finished reading what I consider to be the best book I've ever read. 'The World Conquerors: The Real War Criminals,' by Victor Marschalko, translated from Hungarian to English and published in England in 1958, can be found using your favorite search engine and read online in PDF format. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

My email address is callstevec2@ Click to view link if you have comments or questions.

Cheers and Merry Christmas.

Steve Campbell

Glenwood Springs

Click to view link

Letter correction
A correction to my letter of Dec. 27, 2012:
Louis, not Victor, Marschalko is the author of "The World Conquerors: The Real War Criminals.' Also, hard copies are available at Click to view link.
Steve Campbell
Glenwood Springs

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the links.

DB, off topic.

During the first 3-4 minutes of this interview with Nigel Farage, he discusses the overt movement of the EU toward a military regime as opposed to an economic system supposedly for the purpose of peace in Europe.

Included, he paraphrases a recent comment by Tony Blair: The European Union is not about peace anymore, the European Union is about power.

Later in the interview, he comments on Biden lecturing Britain about remaining in and supporting the EU. Farage hesitatingly connects this to a global conspiracy - "a massive attempt to make us all give up our liberty."

"Nigel, what has you worried right now?" "Joe Biden."

Click to view link

I respect Dr. Viera's views on the Constitution as the product of a well-educated mind. The volumes he has previously put forth such as "Pieces of Eight," are well-researched and enlightening texts concerning the subject of constitutuional monies. I have read half of the original editions which occupy a section of my library and am proud to own them. I intend to finish reading the second volume as time permits. My point is that they do require time and thought to read and appreciate, which leads me on to the topic of why "the Sword and Soveriegnty" has not reached a satisfying sales number for the author, even in CD Rom form.

I hate to say it, but my guess would be that "the Sword and Soveriegnty:"requires both reading of the book at hand and understanding the political and legal points it makes with the application of thought and knowledge of the time period at hand. If this is the case, then sadly, the author has limited in advance the number of readers capable of digesting his work and/or agreeing with it.

Insofar as secession of states from the federal union is concerned, I would have liked to have read a detailed and cogent explanation of why any such secessions would be unconstitutional, especially since the constitution seems silent on these matters. Just to assert that applying tenets of political science (which is not a hard science in any way, shape, or form) determines the outcome is insufficient to this reader.

There also exists much confusion concerning the role of the militia. The state militias most are accustomed to were seemingly raised to be used by states for state purposes, until a few years ago when the disposition and deployment of the National Guard ceased to be based upon the authority of the governors of the several states, and was instead handed over to the federal leviathan. That is how I supposed National Guard troops were sent to "protct" Afghanistan -- a case of extreme mission creep.

And, as others have pointed out, how did a couple of hundred white men of the political class get to meet secretly in Philadelphia and emerge a couple of weeks later holding up a Constitution which created a new government -- and how was this piece of parchment taken at face value concerning the creation of a new government to which so many voices were uninvited?

Krugman: "Kick That Can" (REAL NYT Headline)

Click to view link

Wow!

Interesting to see a claim that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. I have a hard time believing in any collective right, inasmuch as people exist only as individuals. Quite aside from that, he claims it's not a "real" right because there's no remedy if a highly organized tyranny wants to deprive an individual of his exercise of it. Well, if that is true of the right to keep and bear arms, how much truer it must be of all other rights, including all those singled out for special protection by the Bill of Rights! What a "highly organized tyranny" would do to my right of free speech, for example is pretty clear - I would be muzzled or dead. Carrying Dr. Vieira's argument to its logical conclusion basically makes ALL rights null and void. All the more so if I have no individual right to the means of defending my other rights.
I still plan to read his book if I can get my mitts on it at a reasonable price - $40 for a CD of an in-print work is a bit rich for my blood.

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 reads like a limerick. And put in a stanza form, suitable for poetic analysis, justifies all the commas--and gives it more meaning than could be fit into many more words. I think this is the way it was intended to be understood. Else, why would such articulate and well educated folks insert all those commas?

Vieira makes great points and I found the interview to be extremely powerful and liberating. I do take issue with the idea that it's not an individual right, however. I was bothered by the idea that because there is no mechanism for enforcement, it is ostensibly useless as an individual right. Which right has an effective mechanism for enforcement against a rogue state or federal power? None!

The true utility of enumerating certain rights is in alerting the people as to when they can know that the state is getting full of itself! i.e., when to rattle the sabres. We're running a little late, folks.

What I found very powerful about Vieira's answers, however, is that effectively, the Second Amendment guarantees not only the right to arms, but the right--and obligation--to participate in constitutional militia. The states are abdicating a duty and violating the Constitution when they don't train and muster the militia. I agree with Vieira that if that function were operating, there would be a much better balance of things.

I agree with another commenter who suggested that a complacent or rogue (can you spell, "California," Neighbor?) state more or less forces self-organization. Thus, it is necessary that the Second Amendment be interpreted not only as pursuant to a state operated militia, but also for individuals to pursue organization of defensive activities if the state declines. I think Vieira's point should be taken as outlawing laws, like California's, that outlaw (or can be easily interpreted to outlaw) militia formation and training.

In response to Bionic Mosquito, the Constitution not only restricted, but created the Fe'ral government. The people and the states created that thing, and now it deigns to rule outside its charter. Absurd! Moreover, it's unacceptable. Then again, what's a state or a people to do, when anything militia-like is labeled "terrorism" and the 17th Amendment has mooted states per se, and the 16h has eviscerated the logic of privity of the people to the state and the state to the feds.

Anyway, all in the spirit of good natured, albeit contrary-ish, observation.

About secession. I think Vieira's probably mostly right, but even Jefferson effected a form of it. Lincoln may have temporarily mooted the idea of REAL secession, but that's a matter of precedent, not constitutional law or morality.

Anyway, a wonderful, meaty interview with lots of info to mull over. Thanks guys!

Ditto Bluebird! I also liked the comments coming from bionic and ronavery1. Hey Anarcholibertine, you forget to take your meds? All that hate is going to eat you alive my friend!

Trial runs at boomstick confiscation which fail, combined with mathemagically controlled economic 'events', will surely be part of the Cretin eLeetBix's pseudo-necessitation for globby masters.

Directed History.

Absolutely perfect! Thank you so much for this!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thank you, Bluebird.

DB, thank you for this interview. As to some of the feedback, enlightening criticism is one thing, venom is another.

There are many good insights to take from this discussion, for example:

EV: [regarding the accelerating failings of central banks] As a result, "the paper-money oligarchy" will now try to salvage the basic system by elevating it to a global level with some sort of world central bank, perhaps based upon the IMF. This may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish if the Chinese, for example, cannot be cajoled or coerced into joining or at least acquiescing in such an operation. At present, that does not seem likely.

BM: I tend to agree with this view. The Chinese elites probably feel like they are in a position to pluck their own middle class, without having to offer a share to the western elites.

DB: [regarding fear-based promotions of the elites] Are they more powerful than ever or are they losing their power to convince?

EV: A little of both.

BM: the battle is always continuous. There are times when freedom is advancing, at other times tyranny. Most of the time, each side can claim victories and defeats at the same time.

DB: What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts's decision regarding Obamacare?

EV: Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination…"the individual mandate" can be enforced as a "tax." …. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!

BM: Precisely. Katy bar the door!

Click to view link

EV: Nonetheless, the integration of gold into the new system will gull many proponents of sound money into supporting the scheme. "See," they will crow, "the bankers have been forced to return to a 'gold standard'. We have won!"

BM: there are many so-called hard-money types that will declare this a victory. The only victory will be when money and credit are subject only to free market and contract. Anything less and the manipulators will continue to manipulate.

As to a couple of disagreements I have, I will leave aside comments on the second amendment - enough has been said by others. However, regarding secession:

EV: I believe that "secession" - the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance - is unconstitutional.

BM: I don't see how. The Constitution does not establish what is allowed to the States or the people; the intention was to identify limits to the new federal government. Nothing in the Constitution allows the new federal government to kick a state out, but nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from leaving.

Additionally, the Constitution cannot be read without the Declaration of Independence - one must know the mindset of those at the time in order to better understand the document.

'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…'

Especially with (but even without) this sentiment from the Declaration, the Ninth and Tenth amendments make clear that whatever isn't specifically delineated in the Constitution is left to the states. This would include secession, I suspect - especially when the sentiment in the Declaration is considered.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good points. He doesn't really focus on the Declaration of Independence in this interview; again, he is making a kind of textual analysis of the Constitution and that may explain some of his conclusions.

Bravo, One of DB's better interviews.

Edwin after making it clear that we live under a police state which by definition is not a lawful state he wants us to question the authority of every official and court. He proves beyond doubt that the courts are making unconstitutional rulings and that all kinds of unconstitutional legislation and executive orders are being made. Yet he then asserts that individuals do not have the right to be armed outside their official state militia. Edwin seems to think that tyranny and usurpation is limited to the union and that states are somehow immune to the same.

If the individual does not have the God given right to be armed as well as any US army soldier then how are the people going to protect themselves from federal tyranny when their own states will not organize a well regulated militia?

Edwin has made an impressive list of alterations to the constitutional form of our state and federal governments but has not derived the correct result. The result is dissolution of the federal government and the removal of the authority of every official and employee of it. The God given way to defend our lives, liberties and possessions and communities is by our right to keep and bear every type of ARMS and to form local militias for that purpose alone against both tyranny from federal, state and foreign sources.

Edwin seems to think that citizen made militias need authority between themselves. The only authority a militia can have is to protect life, liberty and property of individuals and the community. There is no need to establish governmental authority in a militia. Edwin proves to us how far our own governments have decayed and then he directs us to our only hope in appealing to tyrants to form state militias which ain't going to happen as they are just as tyrannical and dissolved as the federal union and are cooperating in their designs.

Our only hope is in our God given right to form local fully armed militias as so stated in the Second Amendment.

I agree with Edwin on secession. Secession is a judicial admission that the entity from which one is wanting separation is lawfully existing and is conformed to its constitution. Who can say and prove such a thing? When a nation or union or state is dissolved by altering its constitutional form by acts of the legislature, judiciary or executive branches without a required amendment it is dissolved and the people are no longer obligated to conform to any of its laws or its constitution. Further, no one in a dissolved government has any longer any authority with the result that everything they do is tyranny, the exercise of power without authority being the definition of tyranny. Our solution is not for individual states to secede but rather a declaration of the observation of dissolution of the United States of America be made which would prove its dissolved condition unto the whole world.

Edwin's problem is that he treats de facto dissolved government the same way he would treat lawful government that is to appeal to them and beg them to do the right thing and conform to the law. This only gives tyrants the illusion of authority when they have none.

See Click to view link for more information on this most vital subject.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Dr. Vieira is examining the US Constitution and explaining the way he believes it works. There is much in his explanation to admire, especially his fearless description of the Federal government's corruption. From what we gathered, he believes the lawful Constitutional remedy is one of state confrontation to a corrupt and lawful federal government. Once you understand that, his conclusions seem to flow logically. You may not AGREE with what the Founders created as interpreted by Dr. Vieira's textual analysis (and we may not either), but there is an undeniable (and we thought enlightening) internal logic.

Thanks, especially, for your comments regarding Vieira's legal stance. You seem to be arguing for the common sense inherent in natural law (a stance we often argue for). Dr. Vieira's rebuttal would be, doubtless, that his "observing" Constitutional law and is not engaged in a polemic but an analysis.

Is Dr. Vieira arguing that the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to arm themselves only if they intend to serve in the state militias? Is he saying that the right to keep and bear arms for private purposes is not allowed at all by the 2nd Amendment? If so, then is this the way the 2nd Amendment was interpreted in the early days of the Republic when the reasoning behind it was fresh in people's minds? Since keeping and bearing arms was integral to colonial life, especially during the War of Independence, why would the 13 states have ratified the Constitution if the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it's not an individual right? If it wasn't intended as an individual right, then why was it placed in the Bill of Rights which is a listing of individual rights?

It seems to me that Dr. Vieira is claiming that only state governments can form and command citizen militias. Since no states have done so, he seems to be saying that it is illegal for armed individuals to organize themselves in the face of federal tyranny and state apathy. Why would the Framers have wanted to allow such a foreseeable situation? What if state governments are also tyrannical as all of them to one degree or another already are? Are armed citizens to sit around passively waiting to be slaughtered and enslaved by both their state and federal governments because it's illegal to organize themselves into militias? Again, I can't imagine that's what the Framers intended if they were genuinely concerned with protecting individual freedom.

Assuming that, based on his extensive research, Dr. Vieira's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct, then couldn't the 9th and 10th Amendments be looked to to guarantee the individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal purposes?

School Suxs: The American Way (Video)

Don't let the title fool you. This video is actually about how government-run schooling contributed to the rise of socialism, imperialism and eventually fascism in Germany between the 1890s and 1940s. Critical Thinking Question: In school we are led to believe that we are all living in an ideal vision of what society should be... But whose vision is it? And what were their ideals?


Click to view link

EV: "but instead to redistribute real wealth from the unsuspecting members of society at large to the manipulators and their cronies and clients."

the inevitable Ponzi implosion (inevitable consequence of smash and grab fraud writ long and large) is due to the "marks" waking up. Happy to assist:

Click to view link

EV: "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy" and how to deal with them."

Ahh, an easy one:

Click to view link

... make it so "they" don't want to "deal" with you.

The subject of secession is a moot point, whether it is or isn't constitutional. The real point is that it isn't practical today. The federal tentacles are too deeply wrapped around the states, i.e. federal dollars.

Yes, we have the Natural Right to defend ourselves. The Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment, gives the citizens the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. States were to keep a 'well regulated Militia' of arms-bearing citizens. If a state was negligent in that, it still befell on the citizens the duty to prepare themselves to be able to participate in a 'Militia.' The original intent was to have no federal standing army for which to do mischief. It makes no difference whether the invader be foreign or domestic. We the people are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. We have our work cut out for us...

Mr./Dr. Vieira has apparently studied this matter at great length. I shall read his work and form my own opinion. Many out there would rather disparage his work without reading it. But, as Mr./Dr. Vieira writes, there are many sources of disinformation. One must be on guard.

America: Freedom to Fascism - Full.

Click to view link

@ DB

Hey, I understand, and that's all cool. I usually check out DB several times a week.

I was simply pointing out EV's logical fallacies and contradictions.

To my mind people like him are actually helping to PROMOTE Elite Memes through their continued support--in the face of the historical record--of centralized govt. His contention that secession is "illegal" is particularly galling. A "constitutionally-limited federal union of republics" was TRIED. It didn't work. NAZI Germany, the USSR, Red China, the EU and, yes, the USA... all examples of the danger of super-states. And yet... smart/studied people like AV are STILL promoting them!

NO govt. (I repeat NO govt.) represents "its" citizens or "the people". How do I know this? Because ALL govts. resort to FORCING obedience from the people they allegedly 'represent' and 'serve'.

Making the case for SMALLER states/secession... THAT I can understand. Attempting to make PROVEN failed systems work--no.

That post dosent look like the one i just posted.Spelling mistake wise anyhow.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We didn't touch it.

Just watching CSPAN,with the hearings about guns. You can see how out of touch these people are.
I prefer to look at issues as to how they would effect my personal freedoms.I may not agree or like what youbelievee in,but i am willing to fight for you to have freedoms.I also prefer that if you have a problem with Guns,dont own one but leave my right/freedom to own them alone.
I also think that in 1972?when we went off the Gold standard was a downhill pivoting point.The paper money is worthless and the debt well destroy our country.
Its a shame that morals and values as a person/citizaren'tent taught in school.
I also think there should be mandatory drug testing! For the people in our government,they are on something that causes common sense to lethey'reeyer brains. The rest of us,just leave us alone.

The Declaration of Independence is de facto our Founding Document. The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution, the work of a coup d'etat, that as a consequence is highly flawed where individual liberty is concerned.

All governments as we know them are EXIC governments [EXternally-Imposed Coercive]. They totally violate the Declaration's key clause, a lost clause: "The Consent of the Governed."

Until EXIC governments allow individuals to "opt-out" from their control peacefully with no punishment or retribution, then they are tyrannical by definition.

At present, citizens are sophisticated "sheeple" who must continuously struggle to ward off totalitarianism.

That's where the "scholar" Vieira has it wrong with his "no-secession" statement. How can a SOVEREIGN state in a confederation be forced to stay in the confederation if it is by definition sovereign? DUUUUUUH !

I must agree, I think he is full of himself and his "Exclusively Harvard" collectivist upbringing (brainwashing?) How many attorney's do you know who are NOT collectivists? That's their business, collectivism. ["Positive (man-made) Law" versus Natural Law.]

Even accepting Vierra's flawed logic (Appeal to Authority), its odd indeed that he promotes State-sanctioned ONLY militias as a means to repel federal aggression with FORCE if necessary, but... sees secession as "illegal".

So, it seems to me that he's asserting that armed resistance to the feds is theoretically "constitutional", but leaving the federal union entirely ISN'T... if armed resistance doesn't indicate, for all practical purposes, a withdrawal from the union what the hell DOES? A completely illogical and inconsistent position--this is your brain on Statism...

Reply from The Daily Bell

Our position regarding a sociopolitical environment is less government or even no government. We've often pointed out that every law is a price fix - and price fixes don't provide the expected result. The idea of "laws" generally are questionable when applied over time, as we are seeing with the US's degredation into fascism.

But we are also a publication that provides information on the evolution of elite control via dominant social themes. That is our mission.

Besides, not everyone is in tune with the idea of anarchocapitalism as as viable social orchestration. Just from the standpoint of a historical investigation we find Dr. Vieira's commentary compelling. The scholarship is broad.

If we simply wanted to assert the deepest argument ourselves, we could simply post an anarchic polemic and be done with it. The Invisible Hand should take care of All.

Logically, we might agree with this, but there is also matter of producing a publication. And thus we will continue to offer thoughtful articles by learned scholars with expertise in various fields - both for the education they provide and the commentary they elicit, including yours.

@ Daily Bell

DB SAID: "... Dr. Vieira is entitled to his opinions, especially as they are based on a good deal of study."
__________________________________________________________
EVERY yahoo is entitled to their OPINION--even one who's never picked up a copy of the Const... even one who can't read beyond a 2nd-grade level... .

Its when yahoos (and even people who think they're so much smarter/better than others that its their RIGHT) get to IMPOSE their OPINIONS by FORCE on others that an opinion becomes aggression. Even Vierra (w/his claims that secession is "unconst." and that weapons ownership is NOT an individual freedom) seems susceptible to the desire to use force against others to "prove" his OPINION is better than theirs.


In our wonderful 'republic' the vote of a barely literate welfare recipient who's never worked a day in their life cancels out the vote of one like Vierra--who claims knowledge of "the one true and proper meaning" of the C.

This is statism and this is why democracies and ' representative republics' (democracy for political elitists only) NEVER function to protect INDIVIDUAL freedom. They're NOT SET UP to.

Great article DB.

What actually happened to the State Militias? I thought that in the 1960's they still existed, in some states, under under the control of the State legislature. Were they disbanded or rolled into the National Guard?

So; assuming the corporate-sponsored federal government forces a 2nd amendment show-down and the States' militias are activated and in a position to assert sovereignty, are they:
1, being led by hastily chosen representatives of the local counties?
2, county sheriffs?
3, corporate-sponsored state legislators?
4, corporate-sponsored state governors?

Do they:
1, immediately initiate new elections to remove corporate representatives?
2, hold a constitutional convention to re-negotiate the Peoples' charter with the federal government?
3, amend the existing constitution to criminalize conflicts of interest within government?
4, abandon the idea of having a constitutional at all and elect a new "Dear Leader" for life?

What will the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security do while all this is being decided?

Constitutional scholars like Vierra--as incredibly well-read and intelligent as they are--always put me in mind of religious scholars who claim to know "the true meaning" of religious scriptures. Probably because they ARE a kind of quasi-religious cult which worships the Holy Constitution. I'm sorry, but it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to 'prove' that one's INTERPRETATION of a political/legal document like the C is the 'correct' one. In a democracy--which is all a "republic" is, albeit only a democracy of/by/for political elitists--there ARE NO concrete 'interpretations' of legal/political constitutions, only ever-shifting/changing majority OPINIONS. Pick up a GD'd American history book if you don't believe me!

Its incredible that, for all of his expounding on the "one true and correct" interpretation of the C, Vierra's ENTIRE argument rests on the logical fallacy "The Appeal to Authority"--in his case, the "authority" being a piece of PAPER written by 18th century political elitists in secrecy and deceitful violation of their mandate to UPDATE (not ABOLISH) the Articles of Confederation.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority--Click to view link


As always, when I'm confronted w/people who make the LUDICROUS claim that I (or anyone else) am somehow bound (and, likewise, that it somehow elevates other PEOPLE elected by mob-rule to a higher plane of humanity than I) by a piece of PAPER written by men who died 150+ years before I was even BORN, I'll refer to:

The Constitution of No Authority--Click to view link

Its tragic that so many brilliant minds have been devoted to attempting to fit reality into a false paradigm.

This interview is EPIC,and I second the notion brought up by aardvark in a prior comment on this thread,the DB would be doing every American a service akin to that of Paul Revere by posting this interview on YouTube,Drudge,Breitbart ... etc etc..amazing amazing interview !!

January 31, 2013 Trusting Your Own Government (or Not) By John Harvey

Click to view link


"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington

@DB - "how can one be "over-educated?""

Easily, by spending too much time in academia and getting their heads filled with mush. Perhaps mis-educated would be a better term.

Based on my personal experience, I have come to a point where a PhD after someone's name (&/or a Dr. in front) has become a major red flag signalling "Warning: Likely brainwashed fool ahead".

BTW, of all the posts here, DM_MYERS totally nailed it. And it took him a lot less words than the windbag.

Reply from The Daily Bell

This was the word you were looking for: "mis-educated."

But Dr. Vieira is not mis-educated. He arrived at his opinions himself.

You may argue that these are "mis-directed" - missing a target - but Dr. Vieira is entitled to his opinions, especially as they are based on a good deal of study. You may not agree with some of them, but he has reasons to make his assertations. We don't agree with all of them either, but he sure makes us think.

We certainly agree with you about the modern educational system, which is pernicious source of increasingly genocidal misinformation.

But to place Dr. Vieira within the mainstream of educational misinformation would itself be misleading in our view.

He is not your "average" academic.

This interview is EPIC,and I second the notion brought up by aardvark in a prior comment on this thread,the DB would be doing every American a service akin to that of Paul Revere by posting this interview on YouTube,Drudge,Breitbart ... etc etc..amazing amazing interview !!

The US Constitution is a document vast in meaning.

I am a half-vast Constitutional scholar.

The way I read the Constitution (including its amendments), the Constitution does not GRANT us our rights (although many people think it does.) The Ninth and Tenth amernments confirm this view.

I and every other living being on the face of the Earth have the inalienable right to self-defense --- Constitution or not --- I don't need the Constitution to exercise that inalienable right. And besides, the 2d Amendment merely ACKNOWLEDGES AND EMPHASISES that fact. It does not grant that right.

The Bill of Rights merely ACKNOWLEDGES AND especially EMPHASISES those rights that the Founders wanted to make sure were not overlooked in the excitement of the times.

Vieira misses the point. He should think it through carefully again and again.

David Michael Myers
cogito01@Click to view link

Like any overeducated person this guy is a windbag. He's the rambling Buckminster Fuller of the lbertarian set. People think both are genius but if they are so damn smart then they ought to be able to be succinct.

They also ought to be able to make sense. As someone here posted: "A man and his family, living on the frontier in colonial America, had individual rights to own guns as a matter of self defense. When an emergency arose, such as being under attack, those colonists couldn't call "time out" and then walk or ride to a fort, take a break, have a cup of hot buttered rum and ask for the militia to be assembled and then hike or ride back to the farm and then call "time in" and resume the battle."

When was there ever a "well regulated militia"? I must have missed that bit of history. If this concept was so ingrained in the country's founding just where the heck were the "well regulated militias"? When did they flourish? When did they disband? What were their trimuphs and failures?

And this comment gets the Dr. an F: "I believe that "secession" - the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance - is unconstitutional."

Reply from The Daily Bell

How can one be "over-educated?" Is the accumulation of knowledge inherently degrading to one's intelligence. That sounds like a new kind of bioligical imperative.

We do tend to agree with you about secession, however. And more than that, we continue to have questions about the Constitution itself, how it developed (initially illegally to be sure) and how it was implemented.

As always, Dr. Vieira's knowledge and understanding of the Constitution gives me the bends before I can barely approximate the intellectual depth at which Dr. Vieira is submerged. Alas, each time I am exposed to Dr. Vieira I must live with decompression sickness for days. Truly, this is a man of towering intellect. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been interpreted out of existence and I am afraid Dr. Vieira has become the chief curator of the Constitutional Preservation Society. I hope I am wrong.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, as a "living document" it ended with the Civil War but the fiction of its applicability lives on, which is surely proving increasingly troublesome to our hidden elites.

VERY informative, and too think I understood the 2nd... ..BUT, this interview both educated, and further cemented my beliefs regarding the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and wisdom of the Founders. God Bless America.

America: Truly the last hope for Freedom. So, when do we push the UN building into the river? Can a well-regulated Militia own a barge capable of getting the job done?

Thank YOU DB... . excellent interview and superb DB summary.

Thte assembly hearings on proposed gun control legislation in New Jersey scheduled for this week are in fact criminal conspiracies to violate the constitution and sieze weapons from citizens. The legislators who are conducting these hearings should be arrested and charged with conspiracy. The question is, if a citizen attends the hearing in order to complain, are they endorsing this conspiracy?

Oh Great Bell,,,,, great interview.
DR. Vieira's observations on Africa are exactly what I have been claiming for a few years. Most people have little idea of the tremendous mineral wealth in Africa.
The West wooed Africa with guns and poison vaccines.
China woos Africa with infrastructure and trade agreements.
There are a million Chinese in Africa.
Click to view link

Our approach isn't working too well so, we're bombing the snot out of them. S.O.P.
We purposely trashed Rhodesia because they were a big food exporter. We bombed the "Manmade River project" for the same reason. We can't stand to have Africa feeding itself. The Anglo-America hegemon is trying to compete against a nascent trading empire. History does not favor our approach.


As far as control by a police state, the PTB are increasingly relying on robotic and AI defense systems. Also, they have extreme leverage.
Click to view link
Food distribution is also another nexus of control.

Dr. Vieira also points out the need for regulation and training of a militia. I've owned firearms all my life. That does NOT mean that I am trained or qualified to make life-or-death decisions regarding discharge. Self-defense situations generally demand less decision-making skill than military offense situations but, it is still very important.
Think about all the millions of gun owners who have never considered the moral decisions related to pulling the trigger.
"200 million guns are loaded,,, Satan cries... take aim"
Creedence Clearwater.
I've had guns pointed at me several times. I was never worried too much unless the person was scared... . only been shot once.

A banking collapse would bring panic. Panic would bring fear. Fear would bring out the guns. Emulate the noble cockroach,,, run and hide.

Excellent interview! Dr.Viera's views are right on target & great reinforcement for this author. Please see my similar POV:

Progressivism's Violent World

"Moving to a militia-based defense is impossible while there is gun control. All too many who advocate peace also advocate civilian disarmament not realizing that they are actually empowering the military that they oppose. We can guarantee peace, at home and abroad, only by disarming the government and arming the people."

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the link.

A man and his family, living on the frontier in colonial America, had individual rights to own guns as a matter of self defense. When an emergency arose, such as being under attack, those colonists couldn't call "time out" and then walk or ride to a fort, take a break, have a cup of hot buttered rum and ask for the militia to be assembled and then hike or ride back to the farm and then call "time in" and resume the battle.

BTW, I recommend Vieira's missive: "What is a Dollar" (on the Internet) and his book, 'Pieces of Eight' is a treasure that should be in everyone's library. The info contained in these publications should be taught in every school, every year, so as to arm people with knowledge with which to rebut the economic and financial fallacies spewed by commie/socialist and other politicians and their fawning sycophants in the media.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We tend to agree with this. Dr. Vieira may be over-emphasizing portions of his research to make a larger point about generalized constitutional misunderstandings.

I believe the whole "assault weapon" debate is designed to lead away from the logical truth. That there are unlimited ways a deranged assailant can inflict harm and reign death upon innocents. And that banning firearms will do nothing but help such a perpetrator because the most convienant method of self defence has been taken away from law abiding citizens.

If a teacher or a principle or a janitor wants to conceal carry, I say great! If their background suggests they can't be trusted, then they sould not be allowed in the school in the first place. But the mindless flapping faces turn it around as if it were a suggestion that everyone MUST carry.

It sounds to me as if Dr. Vieira is stating in a round about fashion that every adult is already a "member" of the individual States Militia, not just memebers of the National Guard. Also that all that would be required is for the State Legislature to "call up" the Militia for each of us to be armed in a manner equal to the US Military. I agree with all he has espoused in this interveiw and wish that more of his kind would be equally as vocal.

dan haggerty,

I don't see it as my right to own a firearm as much as I don't see the right of government to take them away. Under what authority? And so I don't need a reason to keep them.

If that particular kind of hardware can be confiscated, then what else can be confiscated by legislative whim?

One reason the discussion about the second amendment is concentrated on extraneous issues is that 2nd amendment supporters are afraid to answer honestly the question "Why do you need semi-automatic (or indeed any particular type of) firearms?" when confronted by the gun control crowd. Instead of hemming and hawing the direct answer is "We need them to shoot policemen, soldiers, or any other agent of the Federal Government who comes to take our weapons". While this sounds awful on first hearing, it is the true answer. A policeman or soldier who attempts to sieze our weapons is no longer a policeman or soldier, he is a criminal. In fact, he is the lowest form of criminal because he is committing this crime under the color of authority.

Thank you for this interview DB. Dr. Vierras knowledge and logic is truly nutrition for the mind.

With respect to his comments about US forces in Africa, i.e.,

'Ultimately, real wealth consists of human labor and natural resources. Africa is awash in critical natural resources; and the potential for enserfing its native populations as docile workers under puppet "governments" controlled by the "Western" elites makes those resources even more valuable.'

I think I am on the right track persistently arguing that resource control is a chief goal and most important means of control over populations, especially when considering the possibility that a foundation for a Global Technocracy is being laid in plain sight.

It seems plain to see that Central Banking is purposely designed as an interim ponzi as an enabler to push Governments to the breaking point. And that the co-opted Governments are being used to amass and aggregate the world's resources into the hands of a few. It also seems plain to see that what has been growing, enjoying success are a collection of monopoly multi-national corporations gaining control over the majority of resources, and thereby cementing monopoly over the productive means, where increasingly fewer technocratic 'owners' meet behind closed doors, divvy markets and plot a future course.

What if the central governments and banks fell away and the cabal with private high tech armies were the last institution standing? It makes sense that the times are 'quickening' as an attempt to get as much out of the system as people in general are reaching the breaking point of their patience for enduring fraud and lies built on lies.

In pondering a new currency, Dr. Vierra observes,

'So in a world increasingly disenchanted with and suspicious of irredeemable paper currencies, expect the new global currency to have some sort of gold veneer applied to it, so as to inspire unwarranted confidence amongst those uneducated in the long-term twists and turns of monetary and banking fraud.'

As a side note, the 'veneer' is fractional reserve, which I maintain is fraudulent in nature. Anyway, have we considered a currency redeemable in energy, food and other necessities? Could a monopolized global economy operate as a global company store, where workers are paid in tradable tokens? In this, could the USD/FRN, or any other fiat, be maintained as a worlds reserve currency?

It sounds far fetched, but as time goes on, other explanations really hasn't served to sharpen the focus on what has been winning at the expense of individual liberty.

DB: "Like someone launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed as Dr. Vierra takes to the sea with waves breaking timidly around him."

-----------------------

In fact, you COULD do more than that. Imagine you recorded this outstanding Interview (Kudos, Dr. Vieira and Mr. Wile!) on video and have it uploaded on YouTube. Imagine providing selected bites as well. Imagine having it spread by other freedom oriented sites like LewRockwell's. Imagine the incomparably articulate Dr. Vieira going viral on YouTube with unambiguous statements like this:

"America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself."

If there's any chance to introduce something like this in the near future, please consider to do so. It'd make a tremendous difference, imho.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good idea.

Wayne LaPierre -- CEO and Executive VP of the National Rifle Association -- was recently on FOX News with Chris Wallace. He has also been on scores of other shows since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. To his credit he is taking much heat in arguing that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for personal defense, hunting and sports. Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America has also been taking heat and standing up to the likes of Piers Morgan and other pundits foaming at the mouth.

Given the intensity of the situation, were LaPierre and Pratt to ALSO bring up the other reasons we have the right to keep and bear -- as a deterrent against tyranny AND as part of a well-regulated Militia -- the Gun-Control Lobby would probably go crazy.

The fact that the NRA rarely mentions the words "deterrent against tyranny" and "Militia of the several States" leads some to accuse them of being little more than a lobby for gun-manufacturing corporations rather than a lobby to stand up in defense of Constitutional self-government and respect for God-given rights. Whether this criticism is true or not, the Militia IS rarely, if ever, mentioned by ANYONE, especially the mainstream media. Ironic the Founders mention the Militia in four (4) separate places in the Constitution. If they mention it, but few others mention it, should this not be a serious red flag?

MOLON LABE - How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom, our feature motion picture now in production, explains why the Constitution must be applied in its entirety. As everyone knows -- and again, most ignore -- the Second Amendment starts out with the concept of a Militia. "A well-regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state... "

A bunch of citizens running around with huge and expensive "assault" weapons, having no training or purpose, is not what was intended by the Framers. All this does is ensure the mentally ill, people abusing pharmaceuticals and vigilantes will have a means for local mass murders. This is why the Founders said a well-regulated Militia is NECESSARY. Well regulated means well-trained according to certain definitive principles. It means citizens that do more than just own "nasty" and expensive weapons purchased from their local gun manufacturing corporations. It means citizens who have come under the auspices of their respective states, who have been trained to safely and prudently use arms. This is NECESSARY, not only for personal and family defense, but the defense of each of the States -- and of the nation if called forth by Congress.

The fact that the media and some of the self-styled "pro-gun" organizations never addresses any of this, especially the Militia, should be a sore point with every Constitutionalist. If these pro-gun organizations are more interested in keeping the channels of commerce open for gun manufacturers than in repelling tyranny in defense of WE THE PEOPLE, isn't this really an issue of PROFIT vs. FREEDOM?

If a pro-gun organization fails to address the fact that the U.S. Constitution states that a well regulated Militia is NECESSARY -- how can such an organization be relied upon as a steward for the Second Amendment?

MOLON LABE discusses this and many other issues you probably have NEVER heard from the pundits in the mainstream media. In the main, there's a complete BLACKOUT on the subject of the Militia. The only organization that seems to be addressing the Militia in the proper context of the full Second Amendment is Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers is, in the tradition of the U.S. Military, 'apolitical'. It is thus free to focus on the ENTIRETY of the Second Amendment. To this end, Oath Keepers stands strong for the Militia of the several States and encourages veterans and current-serving military, police, and firefighters to accept personal responsibility for revitalizing the Militia as a duty and privilege of taking an oath to the Constitution. As this corporate media BLACKOUT FOR PROFIT continues, the membership of Oath Keepers will probably continue to expand.

MOLON LABE features Ron Paul and many other experts. You can see a clip of the completed interviews -- such being Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Stewart Rhodes and Pastor Chuck Baldwin -- by going to http://youtu.be/v9FkRM1FFrs

Also, a new website has been created for the production at Click to view link This website will accommodate both normal users (who have the bandwidth to access Flash) AND people with slower connections or older computers. If in doubt, try the Flash site first. Give it at least 30 seconds to load, a wait-period you will only have to suffer through the first time you access the site.

"MOLON LABE -- How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom" is inspired by Edwin Vieira's new 2,300-page academic work, The Sword and Sovereignty, available at Click to view link. Our next interviews will be with Edwin Vieira, Jack Rooney, Larry Pratt, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones (provisional), Ed Asner (provisional), Catherine Austin Fitts, CDR. David R. Gillie and Sheriff Mack. Again, these must all be done by 01 April 2013 in order to get in the movie.

MOLON LABE will be our sixth film on the U.S. Constitution. FIAT EMPIRE, featuring Ron Paul, was the first. This documentary was instrumental in bringing the public's attention to the issue of the Federal Reserve System and its unconstitutional creation of fiat currency with endless debt.

You can watch FIAT EMPIRE, and all the other films, as a free public service at Click to view link More than 15,000 people watch these movies every single day, so word IS getting out despite the negligence of the New York mainstream media, Hollywood, much of the clergy and the public school system.

But we need your help to complete MOLON LABE quickly. Time is of the essence. So PLEASE, disseminate this email, put its essence up on your website and donate what you can by going to Click to view link Multiple donations will be considered cumulative as far as earning screencredit acknowledgement.

Thank you,


JAMES JAEGER
Producer/Director


P.S. Don't forget to visit the new MOLON LABE website at Click to view link