“… there is probably no way to reverse course short of a complete collapse and rebuild.”

Actually there is a way. Know the US Constitution and the Constitution of the state you live in. Enforce them.

Why would knowing them reverse what is going on today? Because people had to have that knowledge “wiped” from their minds over decades of “progressive schooling, propaganda, subliminals so that they would accept what is going on as “normal” and that “We” cannot do anything about it.

First, WHO was assigned the duties to:
– Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

Who is the Militia of the several states? Lets let the founders and framers answer that one:

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

So if “We the people” were the enforcers, what happened, and how did we get a governmental professional law enforcement to take over and do OUR duties (and be in place to be used against us)?

Dr Edwin Vieira states it so well in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces…”

The duty of US citizens to enforce the law was – still is – a duty assigned to the people by the US Constitution. Here in our constitutional republic LEAs – state and fed – have NO constitutional basis for existence. They were created to destroy the Militia of the several states and to bring dependence of the people upon “government”.

The “concept” for governmental professional law enforcement comes from England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people, but some factions still worked to put us back under government control. The “new” law enforcement was incorporating MORE government into the affairs of the people explicitly against the US Constitution as is found in England.

What is also interesting is that Joseph Stalin in 1933 said, ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Those serving within our governments proceeded to do exactly that. The Militias, who are us, the people, enforcing the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution was a danger to the destruction of the USA. I suspect not only because of being part of the Militia, but because to be in the Militia required training, and that made the USA dangerous to attack when most everyone was trained.

The ONLY legality the LE’s have as our Militia replacements is WHEN they keep the OATH to support and defend the US Constitution and their state Constitution. Anything else voids their “authority”, and the only lawful “authority” they have then is the same ones gangs use – force.

When our governments began to destroy each state’s Militia and to delegate their law enforcement duties to governmental professional law enforcement – federal and state, the laws were relaxed to allow police to execute “warrantless felony arrests” based upon information received from 3rd parties – think of it as allowing rumors to cause warrantless arrests. (actually “color of law”, “pretend laws” since ALL laws MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution) Then governmental professional LE’s could no longer be required to be “right” all of the time since it was NOT BASED ON FACTS, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was “lost” (taken away from the people).

This loss of ‘actual guilt’ rather then the now perceived that “might be guilty”, when combined with greater deference to the state in most law enforcement matters, has reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement THAT THE STATE ACT AGAINST THE REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONALLY DESIGNATED LIMITATIONS AND AT ITS OWN PERIL. Because arrest has now become the near exclusive province of governmental professional police instead of the Militia of the several states, Americans now have less assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests or unreasonable deaths.

The modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen shows up most in the modern law of “resisting arrest”. Any US citizen was privileged to resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed as individual liberty is the bedrock of our constitutional republic. It wasn’t that long ago that the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the owners had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such an unlawful arrest.

Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement. Even other people who stepped in to assist those being arrested unlawfully were protected under the US Constitution from prosecution.

By the 1980s many states had eliminated the common law right of resistance for the people in order to make it easier for professional governmental law enforcement to do the work of the state, plus criminalized the resisting of arrest or anything else by the general populace of any “officer” acting in his official capacity. Then they eliminated the requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene, PLUS decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required. They were destroying the basis of our legitimate government, and the level of protection given to us by, put into place within the US Constitution and state Constitutions by the Framers.

The right to resist unlawful arrest IS still a constitutional one. It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights. Substantive due process principles require that the government interfere with such a right ONLY to further a compelling state interest — and the power to arrest the citizenry unlawfully can hardly be characterized as a compelling state interest. The advent of governmental professional policing has endangered important rights, lives, and property of the American people. This” changing balance of power” between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences.

Probably more then you wanted to know, but still VERY important that it IS known by the general populace here within the USA.