The Right to Keep and Bear Patents?

by James Jaeger

The state should be given credit where credit is due for funding risky start up ventures but note, much, if not most of what the state funds, is weapons systems and technologies of (mass) destruction.

In the U.S. the primary business of the state -- the Constitutionally mandated business of the state -- is to PROTECT the God-given rights of the sovereigns, i.e., WE THE PEOPLE. WE are the sovereigns, NOT the state, as will be discussed more fully below.

The U.S. is different than all other nations extant and that have ever existed.

The Constitutionally mandated business of the state is NOT to GOVERN, it is to PROTECT. It is also NOT there to PROVIDE welfare. It is solely there to PROTECT.

Given these political facts, if the state is funding ANY research that applies to ANY product or service that does NOT align with the mission of PROTECTING, then, technically, the state has overstepped its Constitutional authority.

Under the mantra of "PROTECT," the state can manipulate its mission into funding research and development for almost anything in the universe -- weapon or not. The state looks over any and all new technologies -- patents -- that come down the road and decides if anything in or about them creates, or CAN create, a potential weapons application. If it does, then that patent is rubber stamped "national security" and tossed into the TOP SECRET drawer of the Pentagon's massive warehouse of suppressed and forgotten technologies. This is known as "mission creep."

Using the cry of "national security" the state has "creeped" into almost all jurisdictions of free enterprise and suppressed many technologies that could be used to improve the world. I would speculate that the "entrepreneurial" state has thus done more to destroy human advancement than it has done to advance it. Is it any wonder Einstein invented the atomic bomb while working in a government patent office? How much of the resources of the people of the U.S. or the world have henceforth gone into the development, production and maintenance of the nuclear arsenals since the 1940s?

Given this, can you imagine how many non-atomic bomb technologies and innovations have been "stolen" from the American People and shelved by paranoid science- and vision-challenged minions that work in government patent catacombs? It's a wonder our "civilization" even has toast poppers.

So here's a conspiracy theory that's been 99% proven true by the conspiracy experts working in academia and some of the nation's top ivy league universities: the paranoid, power-hungry state siphons off 99.999999% of all human innovation under the "Precautionary Principle." It them stuffs this innovation into top secret drawers and throws the keys away. Not sure what the Precautionary Principle is -- or how the global insurance cabal created it -- watch the film, "UNSUSTAINABLE - The UN's Agenda for World Domination" available soon on DVD at and at http://www.UNsustainable.US as a public service from various donors, one of which could be you.

In the last analysis, the state is an EXPENSE, no different than a monthly bill. But unlike your water and electric bills -- the state's bills are coercion, expenses forced upon its victims who have been categorized as "citizens." Since the state does not depend on competition, there is no incentive for innovation or excellence -- therefor the state must extract payment for its "products and services" using force, i.e., taxes and especially property taxes. In essence, the state is a bunch of thugs running around with guns wasting planetary resources.

Did you watch the "impeachment proceedings" of President Trump? Can you imagine how much taxpayer money -- your money -- was spent on salaries of all the people you have been watching on TV the past two years? This is waste. The state wastes money and resources like no other entity devised by humanity. The money and resources that the state wastes -- if it had been permitted to remain in the general economy -- would solve most of the problems that the state claims to be solving.

In other words, the state and the politicians that work for the state are bogus liars that have no idea how to produce a product. The idea, therefore, that the state is "one of the greatest entrepreneurs" is as delusional as it gets. The idea that public-private partnerships or federal grants are useful or sustainable is as pathological as the socialist mind gets.

The state's primary motivation is "weapons systems." The state did not fund the Apollo mission to get men on the moon so we could have “one giant leap for Mankind” – it funded the moon project because we were at war with the Soviet Union. The state did not fund the Internet because it wanted the people of the world to better communicate -- the U.S. Department of Defense funded the Internet as part of ARPANET so computer networks could survive nuclear wars conducted with the very same WEAPONS SYSTEMS the state previously funded.

So if weapons systems are the state's greatest entrepreneurial PRODUCTS, then population control must be the state's greatest SERVICE as governments have murdered over 262 million of their own citizens over just the past century.

And as far as banks -- like the Federal Reserve System -- these are the state's greatest partners in crime. The BANK prints money out of thin air -- the STATE passes "laws" saying that "bank theft is okay as long it shares the money with the state" -- and then WE THE SUCKERS get to pay the interest and inflation on the endless debt as a hidden tax.

Any rational mind will eventually conclude that somehow humanity must phase out banks, the state and even insurance companies if human civilization is to truly advance upon more desirable paradigms.


As I stated earlier, there have been instances where the state HAS taken risks that private sector entrepreneurs won't take and worthwhile projects have been initiated or done by the government. The Internet and the Moon shots are examples of the unintended consequences of government in that these projects accidentally became useful to humanity. And this is good since much of the time private investors won’t front money unless an entrepreneur can show they have a product where 99 percent of the work has been done and all that's needed is a little capital to push the product into commercialization.

Unfortunately people with money (investors, VCs, the rich) are usually the biggest pussies in the universe – only bankers (debt-lenders) are bigger. And one of the reasons equity- and debt-providers are such cowards is because they know the state will do all the risky investing if they just sit on their fat asses and wait until the investment is ripe. This same mentality saturates many movie projects in that big investors often don't come in until the movie is almost done. As we say in the movie business, everyone wants to ride the wagon down the hill but few want to help push it up the hill.

But this is the pathetic situation almost everywhere. As mentioned earlier, the problem with the state as an entrepreneur however is deep. The state preempts too many patents that could potentially be helpful to humanity on the "grounds" that such patents may also have weapons applications, a broad generalization.


How does one ensure the state can take up slack for the cowardly, insurance-weaned investors and entrepreneurs all over society, yet not suppress potent patients because they're overly paranoid of arms applications?

The answer is balance.

We're talking about a balance that would optimize the innovation of NEW and USEFUL products that human civilization needs and wants, yet a minimization of products and tech that could destroy civilization if weaponized.

Yes, sometimes the state is useful, when it's not building and maintaining USELESS H-bombs that can destroy the whole planet.

So how can the State PROTECT if it is not also expected to PROVIDE? A tough conundrum. In order to shed light on this, please allow me to digress a bit into the nature of protection as viewed by Americans and contemplated by our Constitution.

With all due respect to anyone living in a kingdom, your kings are not only sovereigns, they are dictators. Here in the United States, we people are the sovereigns. We are the dictators. Our Founders turned the entire governmental system of the Old World upside down. The Founders reasoned that, since the practical definition of government is "force applied by the state," whoever controls the force controls the government. Whoever controls the government is therefore the sovereign. And YES, here in the United States we ALL get to be mini DICTATORS. How cool is that?!

In a kingdom, the king is the undisputed dictator -- the sovereign -- because only the king gets to control the force, i.e., have the guns. In the U.S. Republic, however, the people control the force because only WE, or our designated agents, may have guns. To this end, our highest law states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This means almost every man and woman in America is required BY LAW to own and be trained on the proper and safe use of arms. Given this, WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns because we control the force; we control the guns. We have no king that does that. The president does not do that because the president is not a king. The president and the entire U.S. government are servants, not sovereigns.

Our entire government is a public SERVANT to WE THE PEOPLE. Our government rules at our pleasure and in accordance with our Constitution -- which SUPERSEDES even the U.S. GOVERNMENT itself. This is how it works in the United States and you can get a summary in a set of movies entitled ORIGINAL INTENT and MOLON LABE at

Given this set up, the people of the U.S. are the SOURCE of all protection. We are a self-governing, self-protecting nation -- similar to the self-protecting Bankers' Paradise of Switzerland. In the U.S. we only DELEGATE to our elected public servants the duty and responsibility to protect our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Kings in the Old World Order of Europe lied to their subjects for centuries. Actually they just got it wrong. They claimed that they were the divine servants of God; He spoke to them directly and they thus had the divine right to rule over their subjects. Again, the kings got it wrong because they used this divine authority for personal power.

In America we believe that God told US that WE have a divine right to rule. Each and every individual has a divine right to rule. More accurately, we believe that we each have divine RIGHTS. It's not that we use these rights to rule OTHERS, it's that we use these rights to rule OURSELVES. This is called "liberty".

Liberty is the freedom to rule oneself responsibility.

Given this we believe that the primary purpose of government is to PROTECT those rights -- the right to rule ourselves responsibly. The right to have liberty. The right to have a free state.

The state is not there to govern. The state is there to facilitate self-government.

To govern connotes to push round, to dictate, bully, order, control.

The U.S. government is not supposed to push round, dictate, bully, order or control. The U.S. Government is there to PROTECT our RIGHTS, not protect US. This is subtle, but if one does not GET it, they will not GET the American form of government or our system and how RADICALLY different it is from all other world governing systems.


Again, since the people, WE THE PEOPLE, are the source of protection it is the People that MAKE and OWN all the guns and weapons AND this includes weapon patents. This is what "keep and bear arms" means in the fullest sense. The phrase -- "shall not be infringed" -- means the government may NOT "keep" or "bear" or INHIBIT OWNERSHIP or TAKE our guns -- and by extension OUR PATENTS that make our guns, our ARMS, possible.

Note the Founders specifically used the term ARMS -- sort for ARMAMENTS -- NOT the term GUNS. "A well regulated (trained) militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the state) to keep and bear ARMS (armaments) shall not be infringed (hindered)." Arms or armaments according to the Founders can mean muskets, pistols, AR-15s, tanks, missiles, nukes, and any and all blueprints and patents that create arms).

This is how and why our government is supposed to provide protection, or what is more accurately termed self-protection.

If one can see that Arms includes the blueprints and patents that the state confiscates when it funds R&D, one can see why this is an infringement of the Second Amendment. Confiscating the blueprint for a gun is the same as confiscating that gun itself. And since all gun patents are filed along with blueprints explaining their design, confiscating a patent is the same as confiscating the blueprint, hence the actual physical gun.

So the state is in violation of the U.S. Constitution any time it PROVIDES funding for any PRODUCT and then withholds the fruits of the development of that PRODUCT, whether weapon or non-weapon. The "justification" of "it's for national security" is therefore a violation of the Second Amendment because in effect it's an infringement on the right to keep and bear future arms.

Before Americans allow the state to get involved with funding inventions and issuing patents, these things should be cleared up. In short, does the Second Amendment make sense if interpreted to read as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE (not the government, unless so delegated) to keep and bear Armaments (including the patents and blueprints for those armaments) shall not be infringed.

Maybe it's time investors and entrepreneurs stop depending so much on the state for funding and start depending on themselves otherwise their investments will not, in the end, mean very much.

Originated: 22 December 2019

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute