Grant Gerber: Horatius on Horseback

By William Grigg – Pro Libertate –

Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate –
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods?

Grant Gerber, who died on October 24 in Elko, Nevada while surrounded by his family, was a casualty of war. The 72-year-old, who served as a military intelligence specialist with the Army Special Forces in Vietnam, did not succumb to an ancient injury suffered in combat with the Viet Cong. His wounds were inflicted in early October during a peaceful counter-offensive against an immeasurably more powerful collectivist enemy – the U.S. federal government.

In the fashion of many combat veterans, Gerber died as the result of a battlefield accident. He was an organizer of the “Grass March Cowboy Express,” a 2,800-mile horseback expedition intended to draw attention to the plight of western landowners, and to petition the government for relief. His fatal injuries occurred in Kansas when the horse he was riding stumbled in a prairie dog’s den and rolled on top of him.

Although Gerber’s death was not the result of a specific act of violence, it was nonetheless sustained in combat with an implacable enemy that – unlike the Viet Cong – is actually imposing communism on the home he held dear. Communism, as Marx’s Manifesto helpfully explained, is “the abolition of private property,” an objective toward which federal bureaucracies have made considerable progress.

In defiance of the U.S. Constitution and in harmony with the Communist Manifesto, the federal government is, by a considerable margin, the largest landowner in the United States. In each of the western states, Leviathan owns the majority of the available acreage. The Feds have possession of nearly ninety percent of the land in Nevada, which was obtained through an aggressive war with Mexico and steady expropriation of the Western Shoshone Indians. That pilfered property is administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which are systematically strangling what remains of the ranching industry. Similar policies have devastated the mining and logging industries, in Nevada and throughout the region.

Gerber, a personal injury attorney who was elected to the Elko County Commission in 2012, clung tenaciously to the earnest but mistaken belief that the U.S. Constitution protects private property and restrains government power. He spent decades of his life fighting to restore the constitutional balance between the states and Washington. His model was colonial organizer and agitator Samuel Adams, who, like Gerber had been employed by the tax-extracting sector before repenting and lending his talents to the cause of individual liberty.

Prior to 1976, the federal Leviathan recognized – albeit grudgingly – the authority of county governments to manage “federal” lands. The successor to King George’s distant, tyrannical government decided to celebrate America’s Bicentennial by enacting the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (PLPMA), which ended the pretense of actual federalism by announcing perpetual ownership of those lands by Washington. That same measure turned the BLM into a fully realized police force – a fact memorably displayed earlier this year in the agency’s paramilitary assault on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his family, and their supporters.

Rather than submitting with expected docility to Washington’s land grab, western property owners – and, to their credit, many elected county officials – organized a revolt that came to be known as the “Sagebrush Rebellion.” Grant Gerber was among the first to enlist, and he quickly distinguished himself among his fellow rebels.

 
Continue Reading

“The Truth as I see it:” American Governance

From USAvUS.info –

American Governance, Original and Corporate

Both systems concurrently exist today. However, the corporate system has been gaining predominance in the last 70 years. Many Sovereigns (We the people) have contracted with the corporate system unknowingly, unintentionally, and or without full disclosure given.

Once you learn the difference, you may have to make a decision for yourself, family, and posterity. That decision may require changes in how you conduct yourself. You will have to undo what has been done to make your Sovereign status known. This is not taught in the corporate government’s public school system, because you are not to know.

The elite of the “One World government” corporate system want
and need to have power and control over the population (masses)
they call “Human Resources.”

 
Continue reading for a complete chart comparing original and corporate American governance, with historic documentation…

Satan’s First Amendment Perversion

By Roseann Salanitri – WesternJournalism.com –

“…nowhere in the 1st Amendment is there any reference to protecting our right to worship as long as it doesn’t offend anyone.”

Our Founders’ experience with a government that had exceeded its logical, moral, and spiritual authority greatly influenced the Constitution they would eventually design. In our Declaration of Independence they expressed their reasons for declaring their independence from tyranny along with their belief that government’s primary role was to protect our God-given rights. Our Constitution and form of government were based on those basic beliefs about what government should be and how it should be limited in order to protect our God-given right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Immediately after ratification of the Constitution, our Founders agreed that they needed to amend the Constitution in order to protect our rights as citizens in addition to limiting government. And so the first 10 Amendments, which are referred to as our Bill of Rights, were born. The name, The Bill of Rights, appropriately became the reference for these first 10 amendments because that’s what they were: amendments to protect our rights as distinguished from the Constitution that was designed to limit government.

Although the language in the Bill of Rights is clear, its meaning can still be twisted and misused. The 1st Amendment specifically states:

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 (sic) for a redress of grievances.

The section being discussed herein is emboldened above and was the very first part of the 1st Amendment that was agreed upon by our Founders and ratified by the states. There have been many writings built around this particular phrase which rightly rely on the understanding that this portion of the Amendment was written to protect the church from the state, and not the other way around. But ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has managed to twist and pervert even the simplest statements. He persuaded Eve and subsequently Adam to believe that if they ate of the forbidden fruit of the garden they would become like God. Both Adam and Eve knew what God clearly said, but that didn’t stop them from believing Satan’s twisted interpretation.

Another example occurs after Christ was baptized and spent 40 days in the desert. During this time of fasting, Satan unsuccessfully tempted Him by accurately quoting the Scripture but twisting its meaning. In Matthew 4:5-7, Satan said:

If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge concerning you, and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ (The emboldened part of the verse was quoted by Satan exactly as it is written in Ps. 91:11-12)

Of course, we know that Jesus fully understood not only the word but the meaning of Scripture and quickly replied appropriately. However, it is important to understand that Satan did not misquote Scripture, he just perverted its meaning to suit his means. Such is the case with the 1st Amendment. No one, not even Satan, argues the language contained in the Amendment, but he can and he has managed to pervert its meaning and, consequently, today’s Adams and Eves still fall prey to his cunning. (Note: although it is not the subject of this writing, a similar argument applies to the 2nd Amendment.)

 
Continue Reading

The History and Danger of Administrative Law

By Prof. Philip Hamburger – Imprimis –

There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act…

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America…

 
<a href= "http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current" /< Continue Reading