Objective: To Classify People as the Enemy

This is a comprehensive agreement that you didn't agree to, an unlawful treaty authorized and entered into by the President of the United States and the U.S. Senate, addressing the access to and utilization of genetic resources [you] and the handling and distribution of biotechnology [the new improved you].

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10).

America the Battlefield
by Timothy A. Pope
November 3, 2014

The following is a summary of objectives I want you to read, and then try to decide where they originate from:

◙  Objective: To make nature the central organizing principle
◙  Objective: To establish a legal regime that will utilize international treaties to control all policies from the international level to the national and local levels
◙  Objective: To make the use of natural resources cost
◙  Objective: To promote the precautionary principle that scientific evidence is not necessary to implement radical environmental policies
◙  Objective: To inventory natural and human resources
◙  Objective: To make man equal to all other species
◙  Objective: To create areas devoid of human presence
◙  Objective: To make nature worship a state religion
◙  Objective: To classify people as the enemy

Who do you think these objectives apply to? They apply to you and me; they apply to people; they apply to each and every person on earth who is not a highly-degreed member of the global aristocracy that is behind the plan to classify all others who are not them as potential terrorists and enemy combatants.

Where do these objectives originate from? They come from the Convention on Biological Diversity, a UN and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) treaty entered into by the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, and ratified by the 103rd Congress, 1st Session, Senate, on June 4, 1993.

Read it for yourself. The official U.S. Senate treaty document 103-20 can be read here.

And the full text of the Convention on Biological Diversity document, United Nations, June 5, 1992, can be read here.

Visit the official United Nations/UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity website here.

First of all, what are Genetic Resources? According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):

"Genetic resources (GRs) refer to genetic material of actual or potential value. Genetic material is any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity. Examples include material of plant, animal, or microbial origin, such as medicinal plants, agricultural crops and animal breeds."

Also among the description of genetic resources on the WIPO website is the connection of legally-recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind:

"GRs as encountered in nature are not creations of the human mind and thus they cannot be directly protected as intellectual property (IP). However, there are IP issues associated with GRs. Inventions or plant varieties based on or developed using GRs (associated with traditional knowledge or not) may be patentable or protected by plant breeders' rights."

So, right away we can recognize that money is at stake here. Profit and gain are major players in this initiative, and with that said, we must ask ourselves what the ancient Greek Senate asked in similar cases, who stands to gain by the outcome?

What is Biotechnology? According to Article II of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products, or "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use."

Many of my readers already know of this document, but many still do not. With recent events transpiring, I would remind those who know and introduce it to those who don't, so that we can all be on the same page with the knowledge that this "legal regime" has had a long-term agenda in the making, and has been promulgating a very successful and well-funded narrative of environmental propaganda with the intent to control every facet of human behavior from cradle to grave.

Then-President Bill Clinton, in his recommendation letter of transmittal to the Senate for ratification of the Convention, wrote:

"...in light of the rapid entry into force of the Convention, early ratification will best allow the United States to fully represent its national interest at the first Conference of the Parties."

You see, We the People don't have a choice in this matter. The objectives of the Convention are being done by force without the consent of the People. And the "national interest" of the United States seems to be in alignment and agreement with the disturbing objectives of the UN/UNEP which are highlighted above. And the unlawful treaty itself flies in the face of the Supreme Law of the Land. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America expressly enumerates that:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."

Why did our framers clearly forbid entering into any treaty or agreement with a foreign power? Because the entity (or entities) are not loyal to our Republic, and hold strong allegiances to their own or other powers with agendas to see their own aims come to fruition. Our founders knew in their wisdom that treaties subject nations to an unelected foreign governing body which has no loyalty or allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America.

So, by definition, it is treasonous to enter into any treaty. Did you vote for it? No. Did you approve it? Of course not. This was done by domestic enemies within our own central government, right here at home. We have to look no further than the White House, the Congress, and the Judiciary to find the enemy that is trying to destroy this nation from within.

Article I. Objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity:

"The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its relevant provisions, are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding."

If you have studied Marx and Engels, you know that the "fair and equitable sharing of the benefits" is code for totalitarian socialism, or the forced redistribution of wealth. And if you studied the failed philosophy you know that it has never before worked in any culture or society throughout history. It is a fantasy, an imaginary utopia that has no precedent for success, and only ever ends up destroying and enslaving the proletariat [working-class] under the despotism of a tyrannical bourgeoisie [social elite].

Also, the "genetic resources" and the "rights over those resources" means that the men who implemented these objectives hold that they claim a divine right to rule over mankind. It is the age-old philosophy of kings and their divine right to rule and subjugate the masses.

The book of Psalms chapter 2 says:

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."

However, the good news is, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

Another thought: the Bahá'í Faith is the only official religion recognized by the United Nations, and the stated goal of the Bahá'í Faith is to establish an international community (new order of nations; new world order). Their god is nature's god (Gaia, the ancient primordial ideology of nature worship), as it was for our deistic founding fathers.

Example, an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." [Blogger's emphasis]

As one can clearly see, from the very foundation of our country, earth-worship was at its base. After all, the new age religion is the deification of man and nature over God. Such was the lie told to Eve by the devil who appeared as a serpent, when he said in Genesis 3:5 that when she partakes of the forbidden fruit of knowledge, then her "eyes shall be opened," and she shall be "as a god, knowing both good and evil." That is the very fundamental understanding of the future one-world religion which will be established under the world-wide governmental church-state beast system as prophesied in the books of Daniel chapters 2 and 7, and Revelation chapters 13 and 17.

Switching gears, Iron Mountain is a report written by the members of a 15-man Special Study Group commissioned by a covert governmental entity that wished to remain unknown. Mr. Leonard C. Lewin, who published the report and wrote the foreword, was approached by one of the members of the group — identified only as "John Doe" in the foreword explanation — several months after the com­pleted report had been submitted. John Doe sought Lewin's help in getting the report commercially published, because he felt that the public had a right to be apprised of its existence, even though the group had previously agreed to keep it secret.

Report From Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace
The Dial Press, Inc., New York, NY, 1967
Library of Congress Catalog card Number 67-27553
Section 6. Substitutes for the Functions of War:

"...the most detailed and comprehensive master plan for a transition to world peace [the absence of opposition to socialism] will remain academic if it fails to deal forthrightly with the problem of the critical nonmilitary functions of war. The social needs they serve are essential; if the war system no longer exists to meet them, substitute institutions will have to be established for the purpose. These surrogates must be 'realistic,' which is to say of a scope and nature that can be conceived and implemented in the context of present-day social capabilities. This is not the truism [an obvious truth] it may appear to be; the requirements of radical social change often reveal the distinction between a most conservative projection and a wildly utopian scheme to be fine indeed." [Blogger's notes in brackets]

Possible stated substitutes for war as the desired function of control are Economic, Political, Sociological, Cultural and Scientific, and Ecological. Let's focus for a moment on the function ecology is to be played as a substitute for war to control the population, from pages 54-56 of the Report From Iron Mountain. Its words speak volumes of the intended outcome:

Ecological

"Considering the shortcomings of war as a mechanism of selective population control, it might appear that devising substitutes for this function should be comparatively simple. Schematically this is so, but the problem of timing the transition to a new ecological balancing device makes the feasibility of substitution less certain.

It must be remembered that the limitation of war in this function is entirely eugenic [the self direction of human evolution]. War has not been genetically progressive. But as a system of gross population control to preserve the species it cannot fairly be faulted. And, as has been pointed out, the nature of war is itself in transition. Current trends in warfare — the increased strategic bombing of civilians and the greater military importance now attached to the destruction of sources of supply (as opposed to purely "military" bases and personnel) — strongly suggest that a truly qualitative improvement is in the making. Assuming the war system is to continue, it is more than probably that the regressively selective quality of war will have been reversed, as its victims become more genetically representative of their societies. 

There is no question but that a universal requirement that procreation be limited to the products of artificial insemination would provide a fully adequate substitute control for population levels. Such a reproductive system would, of course, have the added advantage of being susceptible of direct eugenic management. Its predictable further development — conception and embryonic growth taking place wholly under laboratory conditions — would extend these controls to their logical conclusion. The ecological function of war under these circumstances would not only be superseded but surpassed in effectiveness.

The indicated intermediate step — total control of conception with a variant of the ubiquitous "pill," via water supplies or certain essential foodstuffs, offset by a controlled "antidote" — is already under development. There would appear to be no foreseeable need to revert to any of the outmoded practices referred to in the previous section (infanticide, etc.) as there might have been if the possibility of transition to peace had arisen two generations ago. 

The real question here, therefore, does not concern the viability of this war substitute, but the political problems involved in bringing it about. It cannot be established while the war system is still in effect. The reason for this is simple: excess population is tar material [the elite are regressively and unapologetically racist in nature]. As long as any society must contemplate even a remote possibility of war, it must maintain a maximum supportable population, even when so doing critically aggravates an economic liability. This is paradoxical, in view of war's role in reducing excess population, but it is readily understood. War controls the general population level, but the ecological interest of any single society lies in maintaining its hegemony vis-a-vis other societies. The obvious analogy can be seen in any free-enterprise economy. Practices damaging to the society as a whole — both competitive and monopolistic — are abetted by the conflicting economic motives of individual capital interests [capitalism and national sovereignty are the banes of a totalitarian socialist state]. The obvious precedent can be found in the seemingly irrational political difficulties which have blacked universal adoption of simple birth-control methods. Nations desperately in need of increasing unfavorable production-consumption ratios are nevertheless unwilling to gamble their possible military requirements of twenty years hence for this purpose. Unilateral population control, as practiced in ancient Japan and in other isolated societies, is out of the question in today's world.

Since the eugenic solution [reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits] cannot be achieved until the transition to the peace system takes place [destruction of all opposition to socialism], why not wait? One must qualify the inclination to agree. As we noted earlier, a real possibility of an unprecedented global crisis of insufficiency exists today, which the war system may not be able to forestall. If this should come to pass before an agreed-upon transition to peace were completed, the result might be irrevocably disastrous. There is clearly no solution to this dilemma; it is a risk which must be taken. But it tends to support the view that if a decision is made to eliminate the war system, it were better done sooner than later." [Blogger's notes in brackets]

Most organizations which don't like this information being disseminated for public scrutiny claim that the report is a work of political satire, or just an outright hoax. Even if apocryphal, however, the Report From Iron Mountain is not only still relevant, but the present situation throughout the world is the greatest proof of the authenticity of this Report. Consider the pressing fact that every single tenant addressed in the Report has either been implemented, or is currently being implemented, and anyone with half a brain can see that the possibility it is a hoax vanishes into the bright revealing common sense measure of truth that is Ockham's Razor.

Here is yet another angle. Take a look at the table on this website:

Specifically, read the left side of the table, where it shows the estimated population of the United States in the year 2013. Now, go down to the projected U.S. population in the year 2025.

Tell me, how does the population of America decrease from 316 million in 2013, to only 69 million in 2025, a 78% loss? Where do the other 247 million people go?

Also of note is the forecast of a greatly decreased population density, inhabitants per square kilometer, GDP, and overall ranking of the United States in the next 12 years.

But what is Deagel.com? Deagel is supposedly an online "guide to military equipment and civil aviation," which the late military historian and author Tom Clancy frequented for facts and figures. Some have good reason to believe that Tom Clancy was murdered to silence him from talking about what he found out regarding the current plague being intentionally released upon America as a cover for the economic collapse.

If you are still in doubt about that fact, watch the trailer for the forthcoming Tom Clancy video game called The Division (watch it here) release date TBA in 2015, which centers on the U.S. military's senior-level Operation Dark Winter, a real world war-gaming exercise in June of 2001 that tested America's emergency response to an engineered bioterror attack on the continental United States using a weaponized version of smallpox.

The Division also foreshadows the true intent behind the 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 that was quietly signed into law, which maps-out the continuity of government (COG) response to a national crisis, a plan to cope with a real Dark Winter. NSPD-51, signed by then-President George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, is an Executive Order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminating the last roadblocks to declaring martial law within the United States of America.

The original Bush Administration White House web link is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html but has since been removed under the Obama Administration. However, you can read the full text of the NSPD-51 National Continuity Policy captured here.

On Thursday, May 10, 2007, Washington Post staff writer Spencer S. Hsu wrote in an article titled Bush Changes Continuity Plan: Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government:

"President Bush issued a formal national security directive yesterday [NSPD-51] ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, 'decapitating' attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House . . . After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers to rotate secretly to locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation's survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing 'continuity of operations plans.'" [Blogger's emphasis]

NSPD-51 has neen called by some researchers and writers the "blueprint for dictatorship" [1][2][3][4][5] and Tom Clancy's The Division hints that the paper currency of the United States will be recalled, due to the fact that the virus can live upon its surface, and then a new greatly devalued currency (or basket of currencies) will be issued in place of the US Petro-Dollar.

The Economist magazine — partially owned by the Rothschild family — published a cover story on January 9, 1988, with the title: "Get ready for a world currency." The front cover depicted a Phoenix bird (the esoteric occult metaphor symbolizing death and re-birth; the new world rising from the ashes of the old) standing in a pile of burning bank notes from numerous nations. Around the Phoenix’s neck was a gold medallion with the number 10 and the year 2018.

The prophetic 1988 Economist magazine said that within 30 years Americans, Europeans, and Japanese would be paying for items with the same currency. The article proposed the formation of a global central bank and the replacement of national currencies. It said such a system "means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the Phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case."

And here’s the clincher: The Rothschild-owned magazine smugly predicted in 1988, "Pencil in the Phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes."

The likely scenario of force-recalling (and replacing) paper currencies would play directly into the hands of the central bankers (the Council of 300, CFR, Trilateral Commission, City of London, Bank of England, Bank for International Settlements, and private Federal Reserve Board) who have carefully engineered by increment the international economic collapse, thereby taking the focus off of them and directing the collective attention of the nations on a ruse — a world-wide Ebola outbreak — as the culprit for the collapse.

Back to Deagel. My sources tell me that Deagel is the same exact kind of organization as the Arbusto Texas oil company was for the Bush family, a front for something else behind the veil.

Everyone from Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show, to Ron Paul's forum, to Thomas Shaughnessy, to the guys at Above Top Secret and others have analyzed this latest Deagel population-reduction link to the well-documented Anglo-Aryan depopulation agenda. However, you will not find one single report from any of the three-letter alphabet soup communist news networks.

Although Deagel claims that their site was hacked and this information uploaded from a third party, alas, the 2025 depopulation forecast is still there, even after the website was last updated on November 1, 2014.

Incidentally, the projected year of 2025 harkens back to the U.S. Air Force's official August 1996 research paper, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. What is it about that year?

I emailed author and watchman Steve Quayle this information regarding Deagel, and he discussed its implications with radio talk show host Rick Wiles on the October 30th episode of TruNews. Listen here. It is an amazing and informative broadcast!

Final thought, a quote from The First Global Revolution, a report by the Council of the Club of Rome, 1991:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." [Blogger's emphasis]

Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, in a perpetual war state new enemies must always be identified. There must always be a new boogeyman to fear. Why? Because people groups are always historically controlled and subjugated through fear-based trauma. This philosophy of enemy-creation was made perfectly clear in the Report From Iron Mountain, and continues to manifest with each new page in our nation's decent into tyranny.

For a comprehensive analysis of additional visible and invisible functions of war for the specified intent to control economies, as outlined in the Report From Iron Mountain, read my blog posting from February 13, 2014.

This is all just another piece of the puzzle to add to the bigger picture of the deindustrialization, depopulation, and dehumanizing agenda of the enemy. For he truly comes not but to steal, to kill, and to destroy.

It is the age-old war of satan against the one true God's most beloved and cherished creation: mankind. Ever since the very beginning, he has been trying desperately to thwart God's prophesy in Genesis 3:15 to "put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Rest assured, beloved, that no matter how hard he tries in vain, all of these plots, plans and schemes of the evil one will ultimately come to naught, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them..." (Hebrews 2:14-15), whose purpose "...is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10).

Amen?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." — H. L. Mencken

CONTRIBUTE TO MY RESEARCH!

I work very hard and spend innumerable hours studying, researching and digging out the truth, which is a great cost to a husband and father. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor sponsors. Please help me by donating the amount that you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to my time and effort, and ultimately to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom for all. May God bless each and every single one of you.

Thank you! - Tim

Open Letter to Vice President Joe Biden from former U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Tim Pope

Vice President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Vice President Biden:

I received your letter from the White House yesterday entitled ‘If not now, when?’ You are shameless, sir. Utterly shameless. This administration thinks nothing of exploiting the horrific deaths of 20 young schoolchildren and 6 adults to further your agenda to de facto repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 

Within days of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Nancy Pelosi was demanding an outright ban on all “assault” weapons. Senator Diane Feinstein was right behind her, preparing to introduce a bill that expands the definition of “assault weapon” to encompass more types of firearms than ever before. New York state liberals also jumped on the bandwagon—bill S01422, too, would define assault weapons far more broadly than ever before and instantly make many commonly used hunting weapons illegal. That bill also makes it a crime to possess more than two firearms, period. And New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo has boldly stated his intentions for outright gun confiscation.

I want to firmly express to you my opposition of this illegitimate and unconstitutional agenda of disarmament. Adolf Hitler did the exact same thing to his people in 1934, and then we saw what he did to his people after disarming them. That is the reason why the Second Amendment is in place, and why the framers of our Constitution declared that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. James Madison, the author of the Bill of rights, asserted in I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789), “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Madison also enunciated in Federalist Paper #46 that, “the ultimate authority… resides in the people alone.” Alexander Hamilton reaffirmed that statement in The Federalist Papers at 184-8, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

“The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.”

So, I just wanted to articulate to you my extreme disapproval of you following what seem to be your political guides, communist and socialist dictators, who during the 20^th century initiated sweeping gun control measures to disarm their people before initiating their mass murder campaigns. Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns, Pol Pot took the guns, Mussolini took the guns, Lenin took the guns. THEN, THEY HAD THEIR WAY WITH THEM.

By the way, sir, if you think that anyone is going to be dutifully falling in line to obey your gun control edicts, let's first ask how many murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers or gang bangers are going to turn in their firearms? The answer is much like your credibility: Zero.

We saw how well the alcohol prohibition worked. We see how well the drug prohibition has worked. And now you expect different results with your gun prohibition? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY GUN LAWS, but we all know that. And neither will we law-abiding, gun-owning American citizens obey your illegitimate gun laws. We will instead keep them to defend against the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers and gang bangers that you seem so intent on empowering against us.

They are the reason Senator Dianne Feinstein acquired a concealed carry permit in the state of California, a city where it is nearly impossible to get one; and the reason you employ a number of armed body guards at your disposal, correct? They are the reason I’m armed—to defend myself and my family. No one is assigned to protect me, sir, and no taxpayer dollars are spent to keep me and my family safe from would-be attackers who mean to do us harm. I don’t need to address the hypocrisy of government officials arming themselves to the teeth while working to disarm their constituents. U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua Boston already articulated that observation with zeal. We absolutely know and understand the deceitfulness, duplicity and gaslighting of those who enjoy armed guards at their disposal, telling us in contradiction that we don't deserve even the basic defense for our life, liberty and property.

For example, as you know, President Obama just signed a bill affording him Secret Service protection for life, while attempting to go around Congress to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms through executive action. You confirmed that in your letter with, “Some of them [ideas] will require action from Congress; the President is acting on others immediately.” It flies in the face of common sense; goes against common law and organic law, against God's law and the law of the universe; against the Magna Carta and the Constitution, to disarm the good guys thereby empowering the bad guys. In the meantime, Obama has been arming, training and funding criminal terrorist organizations like the Sinaloa drug cartel, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other violent jihadist extremist groups, as well as running guns to al-Qaeda in Syria, which we all know the Benghazi scandal was a botched cover-up operation for.

According to the FBI, mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the United States. Also, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program reports that when considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1,000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.

In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Moreover, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by rifles. Also, 197,000 unnatural deaths from infections contracted in American hospitals are reported every year. Should U.S. lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers, baseball bats, hands, fists, and hospitals?

The point is that our violent crime rate in the U.S. is dropping significantly, sir, and our firearms sales have been growing exponentially in the wake of the Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT shootings, bolstered by the massive media propaganda campaigns, and the government’s shameful politicization of the deaths of children. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. The FBI has come to this conclusion, as well as scores of other crime analysis organizations. FBI statistics decisively establish that even when gun ownership rises, there is no proof that gun crimes rise.

That's why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in Europe per capita, because everyone by law is required to be armed. That is the reason Switzerland hasn't been invaded in over 300 years. No one would dare invade them, because any invasion force knows — much like Emperor Yamamoto knew he couldn't invade the U.S. — that they wouldn't advance more than 100 yards inland before being defeated. The Swiss have the lowest crime rate in Europe, not because they defenselessly cower in fear, but because the whole country is armed and trained to kill. The fundamentals of our Constitution, as you know, we're not written in a vacuum. They derived from the Swiss, who borrowed the ideas from the Dutch.

Also worth noting, still not one single shred of evidence of the Sandy Hook shooting has been presented by law enforcement or investigators, confirming that it happened the way the official story said it did, let alone that it even happened at all. However, that hasn’t stopped social engineering politicians and bureaucrats exploiting it for political expediency. And every thinking individual who has witnessed this charade play out, especially considering the numerous discrepancies of initial reports, knows that the bill was written long before Sandy Hook and even Columbine.

Author William S. Burroughs concluded in 1991 that, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” History has shown this to be true over and over, that when only police and military have guns, it’s an authoritarian police state. Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), read into the congressional record on May 16, 1968 “[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.”

“They always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.”

Considering that, let’s use analyze the logic of the gun control lobby for a moment: a handful of mentally unstable madmen on mind-altering psychotropic drugs committed mass shootings, so we have to then confiscate the guns of all law-abiding citizens. If that argument has any merit, then the same argument could be used if a handful of government officials misuse taxpayer dollars and sink our country into insurmountable debt. We should then of course de-fund all government agencies, because obviously none of them can be trusted to manage our money responsibly.

Your logic defies all conscious and intellectual reasoning, and Ayn Rand truthfully explained in her book, ‘Atlas Shrugged’, that “Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.”

And why has the important debate regarding the inescapable correlation between psychiatric medications — namely Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — and violent acts of homicide being covered up by the Obama administration and the major media? The latest cover-up was journalist Lawrence Hunter’s explosive January 14th op-ed article in Forbes.com, ‘Psychiatric Drugs, Not A Lack Of Gun Control, Are The Common Denominator In Murderous Violence’, which was swiftly taken down. Is it because the multi-national petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries are major financial contributors of this administration and ObamaCare?

Continuing on, according to the World Health Organization, the latest homicide/murder statistics for the world confirm that the United States has only 4.2 murders per 100,000 citizens. We are 97^th on the list of murders per capita, with every country greater than us being one with a 100% gun ban nationwide.

Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases in the U.S. that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an 8% decrease in murder and a 9% decrease in robbery. Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43% to a 35-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.

In other actuaries, violent crime is down 49% nationwide. Whereas gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, violent crime, in stark contrast, has fallen to a 35-year low. Murder in general has fallen 49% to a 45-year low in the U.S.

One distinct advantage we have to decide whether or not reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban would be effective, is the benefit of empirical evidence. Part of the law enabling the AWB also required the Department of Justice to look at the effect of the ban on crime before and after the decade that it was in place. The study, ‘Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96’ by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper, failed to show a significant impact on “assault weapon” use or support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more murders.

Mass murders are tragic and, fortunately, rare. There is no data to support the notion that reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. In fact, two of the largest mass murders in U.S. history, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing did not even involve firearms.

A very telling example of how gun control really works is to take a cursory look at the cities that have established the most expansive “gun-free zones” throughout the world. Great Britain, Mexico and Australia, all with total gun bans, are descending into chaos. U.S. cities including New York and Las Angeles, also with total citywide gun bans, have dizzying violent crime numbers. The murder capital of the world, the “deadliest global city” according to NBC, however, is Chicago. The Windy City, with a citywide gun ban, has the highest murder rate of any alpha world city, even beating out the notoriously hazardous Juárez, Mexico. We know that you are aware of these facts.

Let us also not forget to mention the ineffectiveness of gun control to curb gun violence in the District of Columbia. Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, President Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington, D.C. Police Chief, said candidly, “Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.”

Why do you think that ammunition is sold out all over the country and on back order with just about every arms manufacturer, because millions and millions of Americans have all-of-a-sudden taken up Elk hunting? No, it's because we know there is something terrible being planned in Washington. Why else did multiple domestic federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Weather Service, purchase 1.6 billion rounds of various caliber sniper rounds and hollow point, which are banned on the battlefield by the Geneva convention?

On August 17, 2012, following the initial record federal ammo purchases, Major General Jerry Curry, U.S. Army (retired), asked the question, “Who does the government intend to shoot?” In his article, he articulated, “The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.”

Thank you for expediting our awakening to the tyranny of this administration, sir. We have been onto you for a long time. We have also been onto Senator Dianne Feinstein ever since she openly declared in 1992 that she wanted “Mr. and Mrs. America to turn ‘em all in.” May I remind you that Mr. and Mrs. America are me and my family, my friends, my fellow veterans, law enforcement officers and law-abiding American citizens. Mr. and Mrs. America are not the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers and gang bangers.

“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Noah Webster articulated in his ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’ (1787) that “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” And Tench Coxe wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette on Feb. 20, 1788, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”

You will never get our guns. You will never annex our freedom. You will never capture our Liberty. You will never succeed at infringing upon our Second Amendment right, a right which John Adams declared “antecedent to all earthly governments; a right that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; a right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Samuel Adams also declared prophetically, “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

To attempt to infringe, repeal or restrain our God-given rights would be a declaration of war against We the People, and would therefore constitute an act of treason. As you know, treason is a crime prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. The United States Code 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states, “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies… is guilty of treason.” Foreign governments are now openly calling for the disarmament of the American people by our government. The communist Chinese government, Mexican President Felipe Calderón (who’s country is descending into bedlam, because only the drug cartels and corrupt government are allowed to be armed), and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are all calling for us to be disarmed. Foreign media, including Russian RT Moscow, British-based Reuters, Britain’s Piers Morgan, and Indian-born Fareed Zakaria, are also calling for the president to disarm us outside of the Rule of Law.

Why, sir, are you treasonously adhering to our enemies"?
 
It is for that fundamental reason that We the People engage our unalienable Second Amendment, because we all know that it’s not about hunting or target practice. It’s about establishing the balance of power. Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, said it best, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Jefferson also proclaimed, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Paine warned, “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” And Suzanna Gratia Hupp, survivor of the 1991 Luby’s massacre, confirmed Jefferson’s and Paine’s admonitions while testifying before Congress, “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.”

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting at all. In the era of the framing of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, if you didn’t hunt or fish, you didn’t eat. The Second Amendment has everything to do with repelling an oppressive government, initially in the form of the ruthless King George III and the battle-hardened Hessian troops he sent from Hesse, Germany. George Washington took on over 1,000 of them at Trenton. So, we’re getting really sick and tired of all the so-called “experts” trying to convince the American people that the only one of our rights that was declared by our founders to be “necessary to the security of a free State,” is about hunting. The argument that “Americans don’t need 30 rounds to kill a deer” hasn’t the slightest relevance to keeping and bearing arms, because deer haven’t historically tried to kill us.

The masses are growing ever aware of the true nature and intent of gun control. We are also aware that Congress and the vast majority of our elected officials are criminal insider-trading authoritarians. We know, according to financial disclosures, that Senator Dianne Feinstein used the illegal marriage of corporate and state power to expand her personal wealth one-hundredfold while in office. We also know that Senator Feinstein had to dishonorably walk away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after facing the scrutiny that she used her authority to aid in awarding her husband, Richard C. Blum, lucrative war-profiteering contracts.

You, and the rest of our elected officials, including our insider-trading president, need to understand and acknowledge that We the People will not be disarmed; not without a fight. We will never comply with any of your illegitimate “laws” that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void from inception.” — Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void from inception.”

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights is clear: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Second Amendment serves as a powerful symbol for liberty and individual sovereignty. The existence of the Second Amendment means the American citizen “still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.” — Gary North, American economic historian and publisher, December 22, 2013

Alexander Hamilton affirmed the inherent right of every American to keep and bear arms, and the right of revolution, in the Federalist, No. 28, 178-79: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

The orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

Case law is the set of existing rulings which have made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent. Let’s take a look at four poignant cases decided by the United States Supreme Court:

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” — Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” — Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

“‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” — Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys... to keep and bear arms of every description... shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.”

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” — People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” — State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” — Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

In common law legal systems, Mr. Vice President, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. The point of highlighting case law is that it is binding precedent, and has already been decided by the highest judicial authority in the land.

You must acknowledge, first and foremost, that WE ARE AMERICANS. We are not the 80 million disarmed Chinese peasants who respectfully bowed before being slaughtered upon Mao’s “ant hill”. We are not the 62 million Russian and Ukrainian farmers who cowered in their basements after being disarmed, awaiting mass murder in Stalin’s Soviet gulag archipelago extermination campaign. We are not the 21 million disarmed German Jews and political dissidents who politely curtsied and removed their hats to be shot in the head and kicked into a ditch and lined-up to fill gas chambers during Hitler’s Nazi genocide state. We are not the 1.5 million Cambodian refugees who were disarmed by Pol Pot in order to fill the mass graves of his “killing fields” under his agrarian socialism. We are not the innumerable Native Americans who submitted to registering their firearms and then being disarmed, disgraced, and “cleansed” by the U.S. government and European colonists. “Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects." — Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., Constitutional Lawyer

Men with guns come to take our guns.

Let’s take a cursory look at what the tyrants of recent history had to say about gun control:

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” — from a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 

Nazi Law: “Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” — Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, 1938

Chairman Mao Zedong: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” — from The Little Red Book, 1964

Joseph Stalin: “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”

Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” — from an address to the Italian Senate, 1931

Let’s run a hypothetical scenario. If 99% of Americans submit to this tyranny, and only 1% of us resist you — which is all that it took to win our independence from the despotism of the British crown — that leaves 1.5 million red-blooded, freedom-loving American citizens who would gladly die in the defense of our Constitutional Republic; 1.5 million people who have already dedicated, as I have, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor in the defense of Liberty against a tyrannical government. And we know that it will be many, many more than 1% who resist. In the words of Senator Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

I want to know exactly who you expect is going to confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns of 100 million law-abiding citizens. The police? The military? How many of them are you willing to sacrifice to take our guns? The obvious irony to all: MEN WITH GUNS COME TO TAKE OUR GUNS?

Well, I can assure you that there are countless police departments and military sleeper units that have already declared to never obey any illegitimate federal gun registration or confiscation orders that come down. I have personally spoken to many active duty and reserve military and law enforcement personnel who have made the decision to honor the Oath they swore to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. They know what’s at stake. They know they could lose their lives, but they are more than willing to die for honor, for commitment, for country. The gears of your machine would then grind to a halt, and I can assure you that many more will wake up and join the ranks of resistance once they are forced into a position of obeying illegal orders, and they will be very angry at whoever gave them those orders. “What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al, Dec. 20, 1787

Remember this:  Following illegal orders was not excused for the Nazi commanders who were tried and convicted at the Nuremberg military tribunals.

Why, sir, are you committed to forcing the police and military to make a decision to either follow an illegal order, thereby breaking their sworn constitutional Oath, or facing the bureaucracy of a corrupt system erected to make our fighting men and women engage in dishonest and unlawful activity? Who, then, would you bring in, U.N. troops, as Henry Kissinger treacherously called for at the Bilderberg meeting in Evian, France, on May 21, 1991?

Also, why are you attempting to disarm the largest law-abiding armed resistance force in the United States? Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy famously addressed the world’s largest army when he proclaimed that, “You cannot invade mainland America, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” To take those rifles would effectively strip our country of its force of arms to defend against enemy invasion of our mainland. To bar our use of arms would open our country up to an attack from any number of nations who have sought our destruction.

We’re onto you. We know the script and we're not going to acquiesce to you and your foreign and domestic collaborators. Your campaign of fear will fail. We are not afraid. We are the last best hope of earth — the last bastion of Liberty worldwide — and our right to keep and bear arms is the final balance of power, to keep you and the rest of our rogue government in check.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples' liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

Rights are not gifts from government. Neither does the Bill of rights give us our rights. It recognizes them, points them out, highlights them, and guarantees them from being infringed. Our rights are inherent and unalienable. If you, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest of the oath-breakers in government have a problem with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you should all be removed from office and deported to whatever country will give you asylum. And you will be if you pursue our disarmament or any other rights infringement. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples' liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” — George Washington 

In contrast to the views of wise men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the controlled complicit media deifies and elevates the collectivist views of social engineers like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Alan Dershowitz, and organizations like the U.N. and the U.S. State Department. Let’s take a look at what they are saying:

“Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced... The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal. Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” — Sarah Brady, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

During a March 30th meeting last year between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)… We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” This quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley. “What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” wrote Jeff Knox, “Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”

Barack Obama told rural voters in a Midwestern Pennsylvania town in 2008, “...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” And Attorney General Eric Holder said in a C-SPAN press conference on January 30, 1995, “We need to really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Bill Clinton gave a speech at the 1995 United Nations 50th anniversary, calling for the U.N. to continue to stem the proliferation of weapons. He stressed that member states must “strengthen U.N. peacekeeping to help deter, contain, and end violent conflict.”

Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel said in 2009, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Opportunities like Sandy Hook?

The United Nations has perhaps declared the most draconian reason for the disarmament of nation states. This is an excerpt from an official U.N. report in July, 2001, “Civilian ownership of any firearm in the U.S. threatens the legitimate power monopoly of the state.”

Also disturbing in its transparency is the United Nations Joint Services Training Combat Arms Survey for military personnel, in which question #46 asks: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: “I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”
[SD D A SA NO]

Let us also highlight the glaring fact that the famous “Knotted Gun” sculpture, which stands in front of the United Nations building in New York City, is a .357 Magnum revolver tied in knot. The distinction is that it is not a weapon of war, but a civilian firearm used for personal defense of life, liberty, and property.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had this to say about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, “The agreement is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” 

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had this to say about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, “The agreement is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

U.S. State Department 1961 memorandum 7277, ‘Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World’, spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.” The document makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the U.N. “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.” The memorandum also predicts, “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.”

Freedom From War further declares that in the future, law enforcement are not going to be allowed to be armed either. All that will be left is a federalized brigade of troops and a local SWAT team under them. In all the current national emergency agreements, the SWAT teams and emergency teams are already federalized, and are standing by at the local DHS Threat Fusion Centers. This is corroborated in the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) document, ‘Implications of States’ Views on an Arms Trade Treaty’. Graphics in this UNIDIR document show that when they are finished disarming the police, a gradual build-down will commence, leaving only NATO as the world army.

The bottom line is that government was the greatest cause of unnatural death worldwide in the 20^th century. Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. His exhaustive research has confirmed that between 1900-1999, governments murdered 262 million of their own citizens and those under their control in the following four categories:

Genocide: The killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).

Politicide: The murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.

Mass Murder: The indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States, have also compiled a chart (at left) in 2002, detailing government-sponsored genocide programs after passing sweeping gun control measures.

The recorded history of government-sponsored terror explains much about what the true agenda of control really is. Here are a few of the most revealing examples of state-sponsored false flag terror perpetrated for the implementation of control over civilian populations:

Operation Gladio and the NATO Option: The declassified playbooks of false flag terror that were used by governments and private mercenary organizations to disarm the civilian populations in Europe, Italy, England, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand. The attacks included “right-wing terrorist attack” shootings perpetrated by paramilitary organizations that were sponsored by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. 

Operation Northwoods: The declassified Pentagon-green-lighted proposal unanimously approved by the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, that describes how to carry out terrorist attacks by shooting American citizens and school children, and blaming it on political enemies.

Project Megiddo, the MIAC report, and the DHS Rightwing Extremism memorandum: The federal training documents warning of coming attacks by conservatives, libertarians, gun owners and “religious extremists”, a self-fulfilling prophesy for when more government-sponsored acts of terror are perpetrated.

PNAC: The Project for a New American Century’s position paper, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, which was released in September of 2000, advocated the necessity for a “catalyzing Pearl Harbor-like incident” to mobilize our country into war with Israel's enemies. 

Operation Fast & Furious: According to subpoenaed federal court memos, this was the covert gun-running operation that this current administration was caught engaging in, shipping tens of thousands of guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers to the Sinaloa drug cartel and Hezbollah in Mexico, to destabilize the country and blame the ensuing violence on our Second Amendment. 

Statesman, orator and political theorist Edmund Burke remarked that, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,” and those of us who have studied history know that when the government comes to take our guns, that is when we need them the most. Gun control is a recipe for enslavement and — historically speaking — for subsequent mass murder. We understand that for thousands of years, when authoritarian systems would take over civilizations, such as Alexander the Great's empire, the Roman empire, and the Byzantines after them, they would always assess who the upper middle class was and wipe them out. Why? Because, the upper middle class posed the greatest resistance to tyranny. We know that the true agenda of gun control is to purge American gun owners, because you're getting ready to drop the hammer and collectivize the general population by bankrupting us. That is for another letter. As our country goes into the engineered depression, though, we know that you don't want people to be able to protect themselves during the societal collapse. You want us to instead turn to big daddy government to protect us. That isn’t going to happen.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

We have read the Emergency Centers Establishment Act, the Civilian Inmate Labor Program, REX84, the Model States Health Emergency Powers Act, the NDAA, and the Army’s Civil Disturbance Operations manual, all of which confirm the establishment and activation of hundreds of detention camps on military bases to house American political prisoners outside of law.

We know why you're panicking and trying to get this done now, because you see the gun culture exploding all over the country, and our citizens arming to the teeth in preparation for defense. Gun show organizers are reporting average attendance records being broken all over the country, the latest in California drawing over 10,000 people. It’s not because we’re all planning a hunting trip. Multiple national polls of gun and ammunition buyers state unequivocally that it’s because they distrust the government. Your job to disarm the American people is getting more and more difficult with each passing day, isn’t it?

As well, we know that these policies aren't confined to the United States alone, that the same policies are being put in place in Australia, Africa, Asia, Western and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and other areas of North America like Mexico and Canada. We know that it is the exact same program worldwide. The very same thing has been done in country after country after country. First they register, then they confiscate. “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — Janet Reno, former United States Attorney General

However, the last time an enemy of our nation attempted to confiscate our guns, was the match that ignited America’s War for Independence. That’s right, ATTEMPTED GUN CONFISCATION was the catalyst, and you know how it ended. It did not go well at all for the usurpers. 

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stated, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Ruling out the impossible, the probable assignment of this administration and its supporters must be to drive the American people to civil war.

I believe you are going to overplay your hand.

Tyrannical government can only push citizens around through intimidation. The moment the governmental regime begins to use physical force and violence against the citizenry, it’s over for you. When the public realizes that it can and will fight back, the regime utterly collapses.

This is the dilemma facing this administration, its controllers and enforcers in 2013. How far can you push the American people before the people push back? If the gun-grabbers push too hard and too fast, a full-blown nationwide insurrection is at risk of igniting.

Are you really prepared to pull the trigger to start a civil war and risk losing all control?

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said, “We have an administration that has said ‘don’t let a good crisis go to waste’ and you wonder if this was actually a manufactured crisis.” And Blogger Dean Weingarten wrote, “The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control… If the American people learn that the motivations for all of this was to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the (Justice) department’s ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry… Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.”

“Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.”

In closing, our Bill of Rights is under attack systematically, across the board. A reminder of the unanimous Declaration of Independence our country was founded upon, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, which was the last resort for the colonists whose rights were also under attack: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Also, a reminder of the Oath of Office you swore upon entering the U.S. Senate, because you seem to have forgotten it: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” The Oath I swore is much the same as yours, but I, in contrast, have honor, and I took it seriously and meant what I said. 

The Dick Act of 1902, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill, House Resolution 1165.4 of June 28, 1902, invalidates all so-called gun control laws. This act has never been repealed, and it cannot be repealed. To do so would violate the Bill of Attainders, and ex-pro-facto laws would be yet another gross violation of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This law is in full force, full effect, and has been since 1902. It guarantees our right to any type of arm that we want. It doesn’t say “weapons”; it doesn’t say “firearms”. It specifically says “ARMS.”

This is not a game, Mr. Vice President. This is the line in the sand. It is for all the marbles. We see you for who you really are and we are righteously angry. You’re stirring up a hornet's nest, and as George Mason decried, “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” James Burgh expounded in his work, ‘Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses’ (London, 1774-1775), that “No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”

We the People will not be disarmed or enslaved, nor will we allow you to repeat history.

It goes without saying that everything I have written in this letter is protected by my unalienable First Amendment right, guaranteeing my freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Until, of course, you also try to take that away.

The pen truly is mightier than the sword, and considering that the First Amendment is the indelible power of the pen, we would then as a citizenry be forced to defer to the power of the sword if anyone approaches that jewel. As Patrick Henry affirmed, “Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Perhaps that is why you want our Second Amendment, after all. And that is precisely why we will never ever give it up while we still draw breath. We know it’s not about protecting the children. We know it’s about overthrowing our nation, which Karl Marx praised in his Communist Manifesto, “In order to overthrow a nation, its people must first be disarmed.” 

“In order to overthrow a nation, its people must first be disarmed.”

Aristotle warned, “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.” The mask is off. We see you for who you really are, and may God have mercy upon you if you go through with this administration’s agenda of civilian disarmament. You are on notice, sir.

We know.

Sincerely,

Tim Pope
Sergeant, U.S.M.C.
Expert Marksman
Oath Keeper
Polk County, FL

I sent a copy of this letter to my elected representatives:
Barack Obama, President
Eric Holder, United States Attorney General
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
Rick Scott, Governor (R-FL)
Jennifer Carroll, Lieutenant Governor (R-FL)
Rep. Kelli Stargel, District 64 (R-FL)
Rep. John Wood, District 41 (R-FL)
Pam Bondi, Attorney General of Florida (R-FL)
Grady Judd, Sheriff, Polk County, FL

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.