Submitted by: J Cryots
Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant
"The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."
~ Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 178
Thanks to my 2A Compatriot Milt and several others for alerting me to this major “end around” Congress maneuver.
For nearly 160 years we have watched “end around” bypasses of Congress to force policy on the American people. Many went under the radar and even seemed innocuous to cloak the emerging tyranny. In the last 30 years the globalists began ditching the subtle tactics toward control for a more overwhelming, flash-mob flurry that included even using the social experimentation on the military as a part of the “means to an end” initiative.
So this current move is to bypass the Fourth Amendment to seize guns. The Biden administration is trying to validate elements of the Caniglia v. Strom case where police illegally obtained weapons through a “wellness check”, though there defense was “community caretaking”, which the article points out is a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. It is this “community caretaking” defense Bolshevik Biden is pursuing as a vehicle to get the guns – most likely Ruby Ridge / Waco style.
When I first heard about this latest tactic to rob us of our liberty, my first thought was how eerily familiar it sounded. Most people have never read the Emancipation Proclamation nor have put forth any effort to truly study its “cause and effect” as part of Lincoln’s war – specifically how it affected the mindset of Union Commanders and their application of the Leiber Codes, which was a common law of warfare particularly as it related to the civilian populace.
Here is an excerpt from author Kirkpatrick Sale’s book, Emancipation Hell. I draw a direct correlation to events in the 19th century and this latest attempt by Biden through the SCOTUS that could open the door for Gestapo gun raids:
On April 24 of this year Lincoln issued an order drafted by Columbia University law professor Francis Lieber that codified the generally accepted universal standards of the common law of warfare, particularly as it related to the lives and property of civilians. Among its actions deemed to be criminal and prohibited were the “wanton devastation of a district,” “infliction of suffering” on civilians, “murder of private citizens,” “unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life,” and “all wanton violence…all robbery, all pillage or sacking…all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing.”
And yet it also provided, in its articles 14 and 15, a slippery provision called “military necessity,” under which “destruction…of armed enemies” and of “other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable” was completely permissible, and allowed “the appropriation of whatever an enemy’s country affords” by the conquering army, provisions broad enough to cover a considerable amount of the very pillaging and sacking and maiming and killing it had earlier condemned. Broad enough, at any rate, for the Union generals now to enlarge the conflict in ways that General Halleck could say that spring changed “the character of the war” and allowed “no peace but that which is forced by the sword.” General Ulysses Grant, now in charge of the Union’s eastern army added that the goal was now “the complete subjugation of the South…destroying their means of subsistence...and in every other way possible.”
The Union Army in the preceding years of the war had generally observed such principles as the Lieber Code set out, although there had been many instances of victorious troops that, as one general said of the Union troops in Baton Rouge, “regard pillaging not only right in itself but a soldierly accomplishment” and there were a few instances of renegade generals who led their troops into wholesale devastation of civilian targets. (Most famous perhaps was General J.H. Lane of Kansas whose men committed what is known as the Sacking of Osceola [Missouri] when in September 1861 the town of 3,000 was plundered and burnt to the ground, with nine civilians murdered.)
But when the new element to the war became the cause of eliminating of slavery, a certain moral fervor was cast upon the troops, or a good many of them at least, that eventually added a kind of John-Brown-like zealotry to the Union cause: it was not that there was any particular passion to see black people freed but rather to abolish slavery itself, an easily condemnable institution that was the economic and political pillar of the hated Southerners. That is why, within just a few months of the Proclamation, a number of commanders in the field, despite the recently released Lieber code, felt sanctioned to unleash the equivalent of what in the 20th century came to be called “total war”—a war upon civilians and their property in the South, with attendant looting, murder, arson, and rape, and neither women, children, the old and infirm, or oftentimes even blacks, were spared. As General[1]in-Chief Halleck noted in a letter to Ulysses Grant on March 31, 1863:
The character of the war has very much changed…..There is now no possible hope of reconciliation with the rebels….There can be no peace but that which is forced by the sword. We must conquer the rebels.
A few days later Grant concurred: Rebellion has assumed that shape now that it can only terminate by the complete subjugation of the South….It is our duty to weaken the enemy, by destroying their means of subsistence, withdrawing their means of cultivating their fields, and in every other way possible.
Thus it was that in his campaign in the West against Vicksburg, Mississippi, in the Spring and Summer of 1863, Grant had no compunction in attacking civilians and destroying feed mills: “Civilians were suffering from unceasing bombardment and the shortage of food,” both violations of the Lieber Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment