Sotomayor: States Do Not Have to Obey the Second Amendment

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has ruled, in a lower court decision, that the states are somehow not subject to the Second Amendment. Nothing could be more obviously incorrect.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, overriding all other laws. It is the document from which not only the federal government, but the states derive their powers of governance and it is the binding document that defines the limitations of powers of both the federal and state governments.

This means that the Second Amendment, which itself says that it "...shall not be infringed," is one of the several limitations over the powers of both the federal and the state governments. If the federal government, or any of the states violates the Second Amendment, they are in violation of the Constitution. It cannot be otherwise.

Of course, the dumbed down public, who barely understand what the Constitution is, let alone what it means and what purpose it serves, will stupidly go along with whatever any government official tells them because they have been brainwashed into believing, since early childhood, that their government is the source of their freedoms, when, in fact, it poses the greatest danger to them. That is why the first ten amendments to the Constitution were written and included in the Constitution, in the first place, along with the Bill of Rights.

But, the average American has absolutely no knowledge of the true history of the founding of this republic. They have been taught, since kindergarten, that the Constitution is our founding document. It is not. It never was. In fact, the Constitution was written, quite deliberately, to eradicate the founding document of this republic. That founding document was titled the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, or Articles of Confederation, for short.

The Articles of Confederation was, for the better part of a decade, our constitution, until it was replaced, in 1787, by the Constitution. Most Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that our forefathers fought a bitter battle over this. If anyone, these days, is taught anything at all about the Articles of Confederation in school, they are told that the Articles were somehow flawed and in need of replacement, so the Constitution was created. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The two factions who fought each other tooth and nail over the writing and ratification of the Constitution were the Federalists, on the one hand, and the Anti-Federalists on the other. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, were paid agents of the Rothschilds of London. It was their mission to replace the original constitution of this republic (the Articles of Confederation) with a new constitution that would do, basically, two things: first, enable the eventual growth of a large and powerful central government with its powers concentrated in the executive branch and, secondly - but most important of all for the Rothschilds - the creation of a centralized monetary system that could be infiltrated and manipulated by the Rothschilds' agents, for the profit of and, ultimately, full control of our government by the Rothschilds and their minions.

Opposing the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists were the true founders of our nation, led by future president Andrew Jackson. Jackson's role will be fully appreciated when one considers that he was the chief opponent of the Second Bank of the United States, which was the second of three central banks established in America by the Rothschilds' agents within our government. The First bank of the United States had a twenty year charter that had expired. During his term as President, Jackson was quoted as having said of the international bankers behind the Second Bank of the United States, "You are a den of vipers and thieves! I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" On his death bed, when asked what his greatest achievement had been, Jackson said, "I killed the bank."

So, you see, the Constitution, far from being that great founding document we were taught about in school, was actually a tool of international criminals set upon crushing our free republic and returning it to the rule of England once again. In fact, worse than that, it was a tool to establish a foothold for eventual global domination - a plan which we are witnessing the final phases of today.

The Federalists couldn't risk being exposed for what they truly were, or for whose interests they truly served. So, even though it put somewhat of a brake on their plans, they had to accept the Constitution with some additions and revisions made by the Anti-Federalists, who had lost their bid to keep the Constitution from replacing the Articles of Confederation. To their credit, the Anti-Federalists just managed to get the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments included and it is to them - not the Federalists - that we owe our freedom, what little of it there is remaining.

To fully grasp what was at stake and why the Constitution is not what we've been told it is, one has to study the Articles of Confederation, our original founding document. It was the Articles that established our constitutional republic, to begin with, and the Articles had some superior features, in comparison with the Constitution.

First of all, there was no President. No president, no concentration of power in one individual and, thus, no chance of a dictator arising. The executive powers were very limited and were placed within a unicameral Congress in which each state had a single vote. Thus, the Congress, which was elected by the people, was directly answerable to the people of the several states, which created the Union, in the first place.

Secondly, and most important of all, the Articles of Confederation provided that each of the several states coin its own money. This prevented a centralized monetary system that could be exploited by "moneychangers" like the Rothschilds. This was the main feature of the Articles of Confederation that the Rothschilds had to destroy if they were to succeed in gaining control of our young republic. Without a central monetary system, a central bank, they could not gain a foothold from which to establish their power in America.

It was the Constitution, with its creation of a President of the United States, a bi-cameral Congress and shifting the creation of money from each of the states to Congress that enabled the Rothschilds and their minions within our government to begin slowly dismantling our republic. Now there was a central government with a powerful executive (who would grow in his powers over time), a Congress divided, rather than unified as one body representing the people of the states, and a monetary system that now consisted of one currency under the control of a new central government. This was the springboard to the First and Second Banks of the United States and to their ultimate successor, the Federal Reserve.

Now, getting back to Sonia Sotomayor, why would she rule that the states are not subject to the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The answer is quite simple, really. If the states are granted the authority to ignore the Second Amendment (and, effectively, they, along with the federal government, have already been doing so for seventy-five years, since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934) and this is made "official" by a court ruling, then the states are free to write whatever draconian gun control laws they want to. As I have said before, a police state cannot be built in America without the full cooperation and coordination of every one of the fifty states, plus all of the local governments beneath them. While a totalitarian government usually comes into being from the top down, in the United States of America, this isn't possible, due to the structure of our government. So, it can only be brought about from both the top down and from the bottom up simultaneously. This calls for all fifty states to be on board for it at once, with no exceptions and that is why I have written that the current so-called "sovereignty movement" is a farce, a smokescreen designed to conceal the fact that every one of the states is cooperating fully in the creation of the police state.

Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court is simply another step in the plan to fully integrate the states with the federal government. The tragedy is that the media and the Supreme Court will try to portray this as a "states' rights" issue and suggest that eliminating the Second Amendment's power over the states is somehow aligned with the so-called "declaration of sovereignty" by the states. In fact, what it will really do is allow the states to remove the obstacle of an armed citizenry by revoking our inalienable right to self-defense at the state level. This is already in the works, with the several new state laws I've written about which pretend to lift or remove restrictions on the possession of guns, but which actually impose more restrictions and enable the confiscation of guns during martial law. If Sotomayor is appointed to the Supreme Court (and she will be), I predict that the result will be that her lower court ruling exempting the states from the Second Amendment will become a Supreme Court decision, as well. If this happens, it will then give the states the power to write new laws in violation of the Second Amendment and to do so with impunity.