Thursday, December 31, 2009

The Seventeenth Amendment: Death blow to State's Rights

The Seventeenth Amendment allows the Democrats in the Senate To Jam The Health Care Bill Down The Throats of The States
BILOXI, Miss. - The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern yesterday about the shape of the healthcare bill emerging from Congress, fearing that the federal government is about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without providing the money to pay for them. The Boston.Com.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912, and ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution,... Wikipedia.

The Seventeenth Amendment ratification was a deadly blow to States’ Rights, and Federalism. Article 1 of the Constitution originally stated that, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.” In their wisdom, the founders of the Constitution in order to preserve the sovereignty of the several states, gave each state senator, selected by the legislatures of said states, one vote. Senators voting against the interests of their states could be recalled and replaced.

The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, giving the vote to the people, who were already represented by the House of Representatives. The amendment was passed by the senate June 12, 1911, and by the House of Representatives May 13, 1912. It was ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, & 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. This was a subterfuge sneaked into the constitution by progressives who were stymied by the senators previously voting for the interests of their respective states.

Now, to bring this all to the present in the Senate. If the original provision for selecting senators was still in effect, the states could have immediate input and influence in the health care bill, or could kill it completely. They could recall and replace senators who are pushing laws, which are not supported by the states.

In the primaries and general election in November 2010, we must select senators and members of the House of Representives who will repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and vote for term limits. These two provisions alone will eliminate the senatorial dynasties which have done nothing but to serve the special interests, which contribute to those senators favoring them in earmarks and passing pork barrel legislation.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Progressive Goal for America


It takes time for one to really understand the import of the proposed health bill in the senate. But, after reading parts of the bill and listened to, or read from articles, of those who have read different portions, and analyzed them, one comes to some startling conclusions. It has taken me awhile to realize that some who have been on talk radio, or on FOX news, and other media who have revealed the intentions of those behind the bill, are telling the truth in warning us about the dire ramifications of the bill. The goal of those now in power fully intend to turn our democratic republic into a socialist state.

It is not about health care. It does nothing about health care. It will still leave millions uninsured. What is will do is to expand government that will eventually control all aspects of our lives. The so-called global warming hoax is a part of the present government’s design to tax and control all use of energy, the foundation of all production, which will put all manufacturing, shipping, and final end use of all products we need and want totally under government control.

Those now in power must know by this time from polls and the wishes of the electorate, that their chances of re-election are in doubt. But, as universal health care is a religion of the left, and only care about getting the health bill passed, because once passed, it will be here to stay. Will conservatives, who may be elected to replace the socialists in our congress be able to repeal the bill, and other laws that will be passed to pay for the provisions of the bill? Experts think this will not be possible. We must remember that millions will be the beneficiaries of the ‘sharing of the wealth’ from the rich to the poor, represented by ACORN, pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. People by the millions may riot if their entitlements are taken away.

Make no mistake about how all of this may involve you. You will be taxed, whether rich or poor. Eventually, taxes will have to be raised on the middle class as well as the rich. Value added taxes will be assessed on every item or grown or manufactured; services will be taxed. The inflation that will result in the Fed printing money will be an added invisible tax on everyone buying or using any goods or services. If they impose wage and price controls, serious shortages will result, especially on perishables such as food and motor fuels. Instruments may be attached to your cars limiting how many miles you may be able to drive.

State legislatures are beginning to realize the danger to their states that will come from the health bill and other federal legislation, and are preparing for it. At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their sovereign power, guranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Some have passed laws stating that firearms and ammunition manufactured, shipped, and used in their states will not be subject to federal law. This will no doubt be challenged in federal courts. Some states may then resort to seceding from the union. This will then result in further court action and maybe military intervention. And it may very well come to that. then the military will have to make some decisions whether to obey the constitution, or to obey unconstitutional orders given to them.

This bill is a total fraud. We have been lied to so much, we can not take any promises to heart. It is designed to take money from you and give it to someone else. The solution of necessity must lie in the immediate future. The health bill must NOT be passed! That is the bottom line. We must all take action where we can.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The intent of the Second Amendment Was to Guarantee States Rights through militias and the right of the citizens to own and bear weapons

Arguments that float around today about whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states, is smoke and mirrors, thrown out by those that oppose the rights of citizens to own, carry, or bear arms. All arguments against the Second Amendment is based on either a deliberate attack on it, or a misunderstanding of the intention of the Bill of Rights founders.

The federal government was created by the several states extant at the time of the creation of the constitution. However, the states were well aware of how dangerous and abusive a government can be from their experience with the English government that was over them until the Declaration of Independence.

The states envision themselves as sovereign states and they created the federal government for several reasons: To enable commerce to be carried on among the states by establishing a mail system, to raise an army in case of threats by other nations, and to make treaties with other countries. The representatives of the states in forming the constitution developed the Bill of Rights to ensure their sovereignty by the central government and to provide a safety net against abuses by the new federal government against the states. Therefore, all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights are automatically “incorporated” to the states.

The form of the Second Amendment sent to the states for ratification is as follows: “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.” The first clause, is prefatory, explaining the reason for the amendment. A militia was necessary to ensure that each state was to retain their rights to be able to defend itself from federal abuses, or from other states. The second clause explains who were to make up the militia and that possessing arms by the people should not be infringed. This would indicate the people keeping their own arms, not government issue, members or non-members of the state’s militia.

We need to look at the statements of the founders to know the intent of the Second Amendment. Quote from Tench Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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.”

Statements of Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. Source.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353 Source.

Does any doubt remain that the Second Amendment was to guarantee states rights, and their right to their own militias and the right of their citizens to own and bear personal weapons? We don’t need to ‘incorporate the Second Amendment into the ‘Fourteenth, it is there.’ It is already a right for every American Citizen, regardless of which state he resides.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Monday, November 30, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial. Read story here.

Blogger Commentary
This is a travesty. Our government, which I now believe is operating contrary to the original intent of the constitution, is punishing our seals on the word of a terrorist, who claimed the three seals gave him a bloody lip.

I have read many blogs whose authors say they would have given him more than a bloody lip. Please contact your senators and representatives to demand that the army drop all charges against these brave men: Click HERE.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Major States' rights violation developing in Montana

December 5, 11:09 AM Lake County Independent Examiner Robert Rule

If you are not familiar with States' rights you had better get educated. The people of Montana are notorious for being free (reference to the Montana Freemen). The Freemen snared the federal government in their own trap and paid dearly for it. Now the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has written letters to gun dealers in Montana “to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the state sovereignty law.

The Montana law like in other states was written to stop the power of the federal government bureaucracy that uses the interstate commerce laws to regulate fire arms. In Montana the law clearly states that any firearm produced in Montana now will be sold exclusively in Montana which excludes it from interstate commerce. Read entire article here.

Blogger Comment:
Many states have now passed similar resolutions. The solution is for these same states to do as the Second Amendment 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" [emphasis mine]. The militia was never, as gun-control politicians contend, the National Guard, which was not created until after the war between the states.

These states should 'regulate' the training and to develop the proficiency of all of their citizens who wish to participate in their state militias. Both the North and the South sent their 'militias' into the battle in the Civil War.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

President Obama's Speech on the Economy: More of the Same!


Over the past few minutes, I have been listening to President Obama's speech on clean energy and the economy. It is very disappointing to hear the president talk about improving the economy, when it is obvious he and his advisers have no clue about Adam Smith economics, that it is the market that produces, not government. The government has never, and can not now, and never will create employment, except in government civil service. And that creates work, but not work that produces a product or a service that can put others back to work. It only adds to the cost of government that has to be supported by taxpayers.

His administration has caused most of the current economic disasters, and he has the gall to continue to blame Bush. Now he wants to use some of the tarp balance to finance lending for small business. This is going back on the promise to send unspent money back to the treasury. And if past monies spent by the government that has been sent to control financial institutions, auto manufacturing, and other special interests tell us something, do we have any assurance that further spending will help? The one bright spot was the intent to eliminate capital gains for small business for a certain period of time.

At first, I was willing to give the new administration a chance to make good on its promises. But having seen what the Democratic Cabal in controlling both houses of congress, and having a president that will rubber stamp their spending programs, I know now that we are in deep doo doo.

We are now assured we will have higher taxes, higher utility bills, gasoline increasing in price, food prices rising and some becoming scarce, with high unemployment remaining accompanied by inflation. This cabal must be sent home next November if we have any chance to survive our progressive government. If November 2010 goes by and we do not correct the situation, it will take decades to recover, if ever.

Thursday, December 3, 2009


Bill Turner , The Patriotic Resistance
Published 11/25/2009 - 11:16 a.m. CST

We hold these truths to be self evident, that when a free and just people are enslaved by the governments national spending, their freedoms are stripped by Un-Constitutional legislation, and a self admission that Congress has no intention of following the Constitution, then the people have no choice but to remove from service, those that have failed them, both in violation of their oath of office and by not representing the expressed desires of the American people. Congress has intentionally elected to not serve the American people, not serve the Constitution, thus, having made that decision, they are no longer eligible to serve, and are expressly guilty of having committed fraud upon the taxpayer. As a free and sovereign citizen of these united States of America, I hereby demand that Congress be dismissed and elections held within 90 days, to replace these thieves in the night, and upon return to their states of origin, they be placed under arrest for the crimes they have committed against the people of these united States of America. Failure to step aside will not stop elections, nor halt the filling of your position with a new Congress person, it will only hasten your arrest, this time for criminal trespass upon the property of We the People of these united States of America. Read Article in the Cypress Times.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Thanksgiving: A Legacy Handed Down from Our Forefathers

by Rick

Thanksgiving 2009 has come and gone. I had wanted to write this before the weekend, but I got busy with other things.

The Mayflower was at anchor in what would be Provincetown, Massachusetts, on the 11th of November, 1620. The factions aboard the ship decided to minimize mutiny and any other foreseeable trouble that might occur. They made a decision to develop a ‘civil body politic,’ which they named the Mayflower Compact. Here is a modernized version of the Compact:
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign, Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc.

Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof, to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November in the year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini, 1620.

You will notice several important points in the compact. One, the passengers desired to advance the Christian faith. Two, to develop a rule of law by creating a government. Three, to accomplish this under the government of God.

So you see, the leftist revisionists of history are wrong. This country was founded on Freedon OF Religion, and the advancement of Christianity, not Freedom FROM Rellgion. I hope everyone had a meaningful Thanksgiving.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

(signed) G. Washington

Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789

Thursday, November 19, 2009

'Anti-gunner' OSHA nominee advances without questions 'By fiat could outlaw firearms in workplaces, parking lots across America'

Posted: November 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today approved without question and without comment the nomination of David Michaels, the chief of a George-Soros-funded Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, as the next head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

As WND reported, Second Amendment advocates sounded an alarm over Michaels, warning the most significant attack on gun rights in years soon could come in the form of workplace "safety" regulations.

Obama's nomination of Michaels, a George Washington University professor, drew reaction from Walter Olson at Read Entire Article here.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

So much for gun control

Best article I've read on the Fort Hood Massacre:
So Much for Gun Control

From DAILY SOUND — Nov. 10, 2009

There is little to salvage from last week’s mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, but there are some stark realizations this heartbreaking horror exposes. One is the wishful but mistaken notion that such incidents can be prevented by laws prohibiting or strictly restricting access to firearms. The Second Amendment not with standing, U.S. military bases prohibit unauthorized personnel from carrying firearms on base. Access to military weapons is carefully restricted and weapons are secured in armories." Read entire article from DAILY SOUND, click here.

His comment on "U.S. military bases prohibit unauthorized personnel from carrying firearms on base" should wake us up. Every active duty man and woman in the military should be required to wear a side arm at least. Especially since I believe as time progresses, it will be revealed that this was a case of terrorism, not a nut that was disgruntled. This could happen again, and it could be much worse. We have to destroy the political correctness mentality before it kills us!
If among the murdered and wounded at Fort Hood any had been armed, the slaughter would have been less. The gunman would have been confronted by people who could defend themselves rather than by helpless victims. Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.

I heartily recomment reading the entire article, So Much for Gun Control. read article here.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Cavs Delonte West Faces Weapons Charges

On September 19, 2009, I posted an article from An American Idiot, by permission. Today, I came across an update from Myfox nepa web site:

Cavs Delonte West Faces Weapons Charges
From MYFox nepa

Updated: Tuesday, 03 Nov 2009, 6:35 PM EST
Published : Tuesday, 03 Nov 2009, 6:08 PM EST


PRINCE GEORGE’S CO., Md. - A Prince George’s County Grand Jury has returned an eight count indictment against Cleveland Cavaliers Guard Delonte West. West is charged with transporting concealed weapons.

Police say the former Eleanor Roosevelt High School basketball star was found with two loaded pistols and a shot gun after being pulled over on the Beltway September 17th. Read Article here.

I have come to believe, after reading the draconian requirements of both New York State and New York City to own any type of gun, including shotguns, that the laws are designed deliberately to prevent the average citizen from owning or using defensive weapon even in one's own home. And as such, I believe such laws are grossly unconstitutional.

I would hope, the Supreme Court understands this and suspends all laws forbidding the ownership of handguns. I would also wish that all citizens current in prison due to violation of some unconstitutional law against ownership our use of firearms, would sue the prosecutor, the judge, and the arresting officer for violating his or her civil rights.

This would send a message to those who hate the Second Amendment. They fear the average citizen, but apparently not those who are outside of the law that use weapons for criminal enterprise.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Kansas Legislature Working To Enhance State Sovereignty Under The Tenth Amendment


Today, I wish to report on two proposed Amendments to the Kansas Constitution, which, if passed by the voters of Kansas, will ensure the sovereignty of Kansas to protect our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

ONE: In March of this year, the Kansas Legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to protect our individual rights to gun ownership. The Resolution, SCR 1611, was sponsored by Senator Tim Huelskamp, Senator Mike Peterson, and others, and was approved by the House. It will go to a vote of the citizens of Kansas in November 2010!

With this proposed constitutional amendment, we shall ensure we have an individual right to gun ownership in Kansas, stating that our state has the sovereign right to uphold the individual rights of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regardless of unconstitutional laws and activist judge’s decisions contrariwise. This is a great victory for the 2nd Amendment in Kansas!

This is a Firearms Freedom Act, similar to that passed by other states. For information on what other states are doing, Click here.

TWO: Tuesday, Oct. 27, Kansas State Legislators announced a Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment as they traveled in areas throughout Kansas from Wichita, to Emporia, Topeka, and Overland Park. Americans for Prosperity supplied a bus that transported them from city to city.

The state sovereignty resolution will send a message to the federal government, and it is a powerful message when other states are sending the same message. The Health Care Freedom Amendment, however, does much more than send a message. If passed, it will be an amendment to the Kansas Constitution, acting to preserve the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care. See what other states are doing. Click here.

Mary Pilcher Cook is leading the fight in the Kansas Senate to defend Kansas State Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. She has a resolution, SCR 1615, and needs your support. To read a letter from Mary and to add your name as a signature, visit her special page showing the letter, including a link to the bill. To add your name to the letter, please e-mail us at and include your name and city! Thank you.

Go to her web page for more information: Click Here.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Gun Rights Organizations File Lawsuit To Stop Seattle Ban

Second Amendment Foundation
Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:44pm EDT
For Immediate Release: 10/28/2009
BELLEVUE, Wash.--(Business Wire)--
The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State`s long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors. Read Article Here.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Today’s Liberals are Not Really Liberals


I originally posted this on my other blog, Ricks pro-life, anti-euthanasia, and related, on June 27, 2009. In light of what is now happening in our government, it is appropriate to re-post it on my pro-constitutional blog.

Let’s get this straight! Today’s so-called liberals are far from the classic liberals we knew from fifty years ago. The liberals today are in the far-left, more properly referred to as “progressives.” Progressives have been the ones responsible from the beginning of the Constitutional United States for a gradual departing from the Constitution itself until today we are rapidly destroying it.
“Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9].
(Above numbers refer to sources of the wikipedia article.

Our recent progressive presidents were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and presently, Barack Obama. President Obama is, according to the Russian Newspaper, Pravda, is bringing Marxism to the U.S. with amazing speed.
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. Read article in Pravda.

Progressives are supported by unions, gays, feminists, pro-abortionists, and promote universal health care, radical environmental programs, and a strong central government.

Classical Liberals? No way. They are radical far-left progressives that want to destroy Capitalism and replace it with Socialism, pure and simple. Along with this change, they will gain total control of our lives from the time we rise until the time we retire at night. It seems like we saw this before in the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and presently in the Islamic nations.

The administration claims that charges that they are 'socialist' is not true.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Unconstitionally Appointed 'Pay Czar' Dictates Pay for Bank CEOs

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: After the Obama administration's pay czar Kenneth Feinberg pushed outgoing Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis to return the $1 million he has made so far this year and forego the $1.5 million he is set to make next year, the White House today called Feinberg a "forceful advocate" for American taxpayers. (Read article on ABC Web Site here).

I am in favor of limiting the salaries of CEOs of any company, bank or otherwise, that have received TARP funds. However, a czar, especially one that was unconfirmed, should not be making unconstitutional demands on limiting the salaries of company executives.
John Harrison, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, said czars have no legal power and therefore do not violate the Constitution and would not need to be confirmed by Congress.

I would agree if Feinberg is only making 'suggestions' and can not legally enforce his demands. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, sent a letter to Obama last month raising questions about his appointed czars.
The letter, co-signed by five other Senate Republicans, said 18 “czar” positions, which have not been confirmed by the Senate or established by law, fall into a gray area that raises “serious issues of accountability, transparency and oversight” and circumvents Congress’ “constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’”
Sen. Collins questions constitutionality of czars Click here for story.

Arbitrary decrees by unconfirmed czars establish dangerous trends. The Obama administration should use constitutionally legal means of controlling the salaries of CEOs of companies receiving TARP funds.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?

In searching for material for an article I wanted to post on this subject, I found the following by Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners Foundation. It covers the subject and I present it here from the web site of Gun Owners of America:
by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President, Gun Owners Foundation

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons. Read Article by Larry Pratt.

In searching for the origin of what I think was a 'backhand slap,' mentioned in the Biblical 'Sermon on the Mount,' I came across Wikipedias's explanation, which I think pretty much covers the origin and meaning:
Turning the other cheek:
“At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.” wikipedia article.
Rick's Blog.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Another Second Amendment Case Goes to the Supreme Court

Posted: 09/30/09, from Gun Owners of America
Written by John Velleco
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 21:17

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago's ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a "collective" right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard. . . Read Article Here.

Friday, October 2, 2009

The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court

[from The Heritage Foundation]
by Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves

The idea of establishing an international court to prosecute serious international crimes--war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--has long held a special place in the hearts of human rights activists and those hoping to hold perpetrators of terrible crimes to account. In 1998, that idea became reality when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted at a diplomatic conference convened by the U.N. General Assembly. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was formally established in 2002 after 60 countries ratified the statute. The ICC was created to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the as yet undefined crime of aggression. Regrettably, although the court's supporters have a noble purpose, there are a number of reasons to be cautious and concerned about how ratification of the Rome Statute would affect U.S. sovereignty and how ICC action could affect politically precarious situations around the world.

Among other concerns, past U.S. Administrations concluded that the Rome Statute created a seriously flawed institution that lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability to the U.N. Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states in some circumstances. These concerns led President Bill Clinton to urge President George W. Bush not to submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent necessary for ratification.[1] After extensive efforts to change the statute to address key U.S. concerns failed, President Bush felt it necessary to "un-sign" the Rome Statute by formally notifying the U.N. Secretary-General that the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty and was no longer bound under international law to avoid actions that would run counter to the intent and purpose of the treaty. Subsequently, the U.S. took a number of steps to protect its military personnel, officials, and nationals from ICC claims of jurisdiction."

The article is rather lengthy, but you can read it here.
If you wish to help the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice), fight this effort to put our citizens, i.e., American Soldiers, under the juridiction of the court, please click here.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

John Locke Has Good Advice For Our Power Seeking Officials

We need to send this to our senators, congress members, and state representatives.

John Locke Quote

"... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society." Source.

by John Locke
(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Second Treatise of Civil Government [1690], #222 (Lasslet Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 460-461; French translation by David Mazel (1691): Traité de gouvernement civil (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1984), pp. 348-349

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Militia is Not the National Guard—It is We The People


Time after time, I have posted on this blog, quotes from our founding fathers, as to why the Second Amendment was written. I have also read dozens of other blogs presenting the same information. Some have reprinted letters written between various of our founding fathers to one another, not only about why the need for the Second Amendment, but what it spells out. And very clearly, the founders have also spelled out who it applied to and who is the militia mentioned in the amendment. Yet, I still read, on a daily basis, blogs, articles, opinions on opinion pages of daily newspapers, and rants from those who are either naive to the real meaning of, or outright hatred of the Second Amendment.

One article written by David Swanson, posted just this morning, the 24th of September, on the Let’s Try Democracy website, linked here, presenting a new argument: The Second Amendment was written to protect the Southern states’ right to use armed militias to enforce slavery. We no longer have slavery, but we do have the National Guard, which is supposed to be under the control of state governors. Maintaining the Second Amendment to allow the states to ‘enforce’ slavery is totally without foundation. This idea has been disproved by various individuals.

Also, the connection between the second amendment and the national guard here needs some explanation. He explains further by saying, We need to correct the current situation in which the US president controls the National Guard and sends its members to fight foreign wars for empire. If we read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, it is important to notice that it makes no distinction between the right to bear arms to violently protect oneself and the right to bear arms to easily slaughter masses of people, or the fact that some types of arms are much better suited to the latter than the former. Clearly, this is one right that needs to be limited by legislation or amendment to the extent that it conflicts with that “self-evident” right to “life.” The line, "slaughter masses of people," is ridiculous. Many laws exist which punish the improper use of fire arms, and needs not be addressed by further legislation, as too many laws already exist that prohibit the use of fire arms, some which should be lawful under the Second Amendment.

The Constitution neither provides for nor prohibits the establishment of a National Guard. The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. . . Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[3] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.[4] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[4] (Quoted from Wikipedia).

The National Guard is NOT the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment: “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.” If the National Guard is not the militia, what is the militia, and who constitutes it?
"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 birthright 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." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788) What the Founding Fathers Meant by the "Militia"

Many more quotes from our founding fathers are available, but this should be enough to settle the question among those who either do not know, or who know and don’t want anyone else to know. It is the latter that I believe are in the leftist camp, who want to change our constitution, and they will lie, use trickery, and any dishonest means to accomplish this. They hope to enlist the aid of the uninformed citizen, to make him believe that the Second Amendment is not for the average citizen for his own protection, or to protect him from an abusive government.

We must be vigilant and do more than to just defend what we used to believe the Second Amendment meant. We must expand the right to carry either openly or concealed. We must elect men and women to the government that will not only protect the Second Amendment, but who will set about the task to repeal all state and federal laws that restrict the honest American from the proper possession and use of personal arms. This includes the repeal of all laws requiring the licensing of fire arms, such as those in New York and New York City, procedures which take time, and cost a prohibitive amount of money for some residents to obtain a license to own. The licensing includes shot guns and hunting rifles.

Those who are now openly carrying are setting the example, which much be protected and supported by all who support the Second Amendment. From now on, we must not allow any further watering down of the original meaning of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. If we lose our rights under the Second Amendment, we will soon after lose our rights under the First. Then the other rights will also be lost, one by one, until we will lose all of our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. We must never permit that day to come!

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Cavs Guard Delonte West: Desperado?

[Yesterday, I came across an article as I peruse other pro-constitution blogs daily, that I felt was extremely relative to some of the attitudes prevalent today against the Second Amendment. We need to be vigilant to protect the one right that will allow us to protect all other rights. I was graciously given permission to repost the article in its entirely from An American Idiot, exploring idiocy in american politics, the economy, and beyond. Check out the blog; it is worth your time: An American Idiot.]

Thursday evening, NBA star, Delonte West was riding his Can-Am Spyder on the Washington Beltway in Largo, MD when he made an unsafe lane change. Bad enough, except that he cut off a county cop who responded by pulling West over. West dutifully informed the officer that he had a handgun in his belt. The Washington Post reported that this disclosure prompted the officer to call for backup. Officers then discovered a total of three firearms in West’s possession, the Beretta 9mm West informed the officer about, a Ruger .357 magnum on his leg, and inside a guitar case of all places, a shotgun.

West was taken into custody for the two handguns, the shotgun was legal. If you are like me, you may have wondered what exactly did West do wrong? Prince George Police Spokesman, Major Andy Ellis, never explained this to my satisfaction. He told us that West had been charged with two criminal counts of carrying a handgun. He did not say West was carrying unregistered guns or that he lacked permits. He did not even say that the guns in question were illegal in DC. I noticed West being condemned by both the press and the blogosphere. Sure, West has a history of depression, but really, what does that have to do with anything? The only reason his past depression would be relevant, would be if we were to assume he was off to kill himself? Talk about overkill!

Seriously. While I am no gun aficionado, I could not understand West’s crime. Major Ellis cited no specific law. Thus, I decided a little research was in order. My curiosity was peaked. All I needed was a little inductive reasoning. In the end, I learned that perhaps the issue, at least for me, is not whether Delonte West was playing Desperado, but rather the handgun laws in DC.

I’m unsure if Largo, MD and DC have similar attitudes on guns but I suspect this is the case. DC has some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws. In 1976 guns were completely outlawed there. The law, known as the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, remained on the DC books until the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional in 2007. The city, determined to disarm law-abiding citizens, fought back, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. SCOTUS found that the DC law violated the Second Amendment not only by the outright ban but through a requirement that all guns in DC be restricted to homes, unloaded, and disassembled. You can see the implication, right?

Following the ruling DC was forced to retire the Firearms Act, but they still retained the right to register guns. Herein lies the root of Delonte West’s problem. Washington DC retains its unconstitutional firearms ban informally through the registration process. It is an unofficial gun ban because DC just doesn’t issue gun permits easily or in a timely manner. The supposed five day process has been reported to take months if not rejected.

Just this past July, an amendment to a defense bill would have allowed concealed weapons permits to be valid across state lines. However, in a 58 to 39 vote the amendment was rejected. Therefore, regardless of whether West legally registered and obtained permits in Cleveland or elsewhere, DC would not recognize those. Case closed. Isn’t it interesting that not one press outlet offered a reason for West’s overnight incarceration. Now it makes sense.

Now why was West so heavily armed? Beats me but I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with his past depression. Maybe his father nailed it when he pointed out how dangerous the streets of DC are. After all, now we’ve established only the criminals in DC have guns.

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted by permission from August 18, 2009

Category: Healthcare

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

And another to the Bill of Rights:

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton, Texas

Friday, September 11, 2009


You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news On September 11, 2001. Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK... I am ready to go.'

I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said. 'Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now.'

I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

I was in Texas, Virginia, California, Michigan, Afghanistan.

I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name - though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor. Some sought Me with their last breath. Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.

But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are 'ready to go.'

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Czar Cass Sunstein's True Beliefs on the Second Amendment

Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Professor, and Obama's newest czar of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has recently assured members of congress that he believes the Second Amendment assure private possession of firearms for personal protection.

However, is that what he lectured to college student on Oct. 23, 2007?

Since we have heard so many promises and statements from the Obama administration that have not proved consistent with the truth, I fully believe Sunstein does not really believe the Second Amendment provides the right of personal protection for citizens of the U.S.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Leftist Lies About the Second Amendment Revealed by Our Forefathers

Second Amendment Intentions

Lately, we’ve heard members of congress, some in the media, and left wing bloggers telling us that the ‘militia’ mentioned in the Second Amendment meant everything from the military, the national guard, or a state organized militia, and not individual citizens. If we go to those that were involved in forming the Constitution, what do they say the militia is?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"A Well Regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789. James Madison.

And how did they approach private ownership of personal weapons?
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2, Article on the Bill of Rights

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

And what about the question about whether or not the Second Commandment applies to the states:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

And what about those who claim the Second Amendment applies only to hunting, which is so ludicrous, it needs not to be discussed. However, let us humor them. What did Thomas Paine think:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, American Patriot

A lot more quotes are available for those who want to research more. But, this should give us an idea on what our forefathers determined in the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is clear that citizens make up the militia; that private ownership was intended; and that it was not for hunting only. We need to remain vigilant to make sure we do not give up the rights preserved to us under the Second Amendment.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

I received this by email and checked it out. I found it on dozens of web sites, and I decided also to post it. The more sites, the better.

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California ..

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash " under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention.

Joe Legal:
$25..00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal:
$15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600..00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, o r $14,400.00 per year.. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $25,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $25,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...

You are part of the problem!

It's way P A S T time to take a stand for America and Americans!

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Cybersecurity Bill Gives President Broad Powers Over Internet

Posted 08/31/09 on POLITICS DAILY

A Senate bill that put civil libertarians on edge earlier this year is still in the works: CNET obtained a copy of the current revision of S.773, a measure that would give the president authority to disconnect the private Internet networks during a "cybersecurity emergency." The original bill, introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, called for an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor that would have vast powers over Internet traffic. In other words, Internet oversight would move from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House.

Criticism of S.773 has focused on its vagueness and lack of clear limits on the executive powers it creates. It does not define clearly what would constitute a "cyber-emergency," and mandates that private companies share unlimited information of an unspecified nature with the federal government. "Imagine the control that ambiguity can do for someone in terms of power," Newsvine blogger Lars Hindley wrote. The Department of Homeland Security has also argued that shuffling the authority is an unnecessary bother. Read Story.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

What is the Political Goal of the Present U.S. Administration?


Many Conservatives, Republican, Conservative Christians, and other moral citizens can not understand the mindset of the present U.S. administration. Obama and his appointees are secular progressives, who have been trained in our colleges that America has "lost its way" and must be changed. Remember, "change" was the war cry of Obama and many of the Democrats in his administration and in congress.

Some psychiatrists have labeled the progressive ideology as a “religion,” whose adherents are totally blind to any other set of beliefs. This is why they are against Christianity, conservatism, & moralism, which they are trying to eliminate from the public sector as it shines light on their “religion.” Is it any wonder they are the ones behind the false "separation of state and church" doctrine.

As a much higher percentage of Republicans support the latter, they had began in the 80s with the establishment of Acorn and a plethora of other leftist organisms---which are intertwined as Glenn Beck continually points out---to eventually exterminate Republicanism out of existence, which they have been trying through liberal education, massive voter fraud, lies, deceit, etc. This they arrogantly think they have now done with the presidency and both houses of congress in the Democrat pasture. This explains why they are now so bold in their attempt to replace capitalism with marxism. Make no mistake. Obama and most of his appointees are former adherents of far leftist ideologies. Socialism leading to a one world government is their ultimate goal.

It is important that the blogosphere, one of the most powerful tools for revealing the truth, must never be destroyed, as some are trying to figure out how to do so. As many of us who strongly believe in and fiercely support the Second Amendment, believe they must first destroy the right of citizens to own and use personal weapons. The two go together!.

We must be vigilant and cry aloud when we see danger coming. "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand" (Eze 33:6). There is a burden upon those who can see the danger coming; we must warn others or we will be as guilty as the perpetrators in the coming catastrophe. See the warning former President Reagan had to say in my other blog: Reagan Warning.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

A History Lesson on Guns & Gun Confiscation

History Lesson on Guns

from Glenn Gohr Website.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been just over 12 months [*Actually now it has been over 10 years since that September 1997.] since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns………..We Are “Citizens”
Without Them……..We Are “Subjects”

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral [Isoroku] Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor had attended Harvard University (1919-1921) and was Naval Attaché to the U. S. (1925-28). Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends.

*See also a gun control history chart and book, Death by “Gun Control”: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens, Attorney at Law, 2001.

Gun Owners for Ron Paul:

Gun control a waste of money

American Union

Australian Gun Control Update

Australian Gun Control – Big Failure

Innocents Betrayed

Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

from Glen Gohr's Weblog

Monday, August 17, 2009

N Y Shop Owner Protects Self & Employee with Shotgun

Originally posted Friday, August 14, 2009, by The Unreligious Right blog.
The Second Amendment in Action

Four criminals picked the wrong Harlem shop to rob. As they tried to put plastic cuffs on two employees, beating one who resisted, 72-year old Charles Augusto Jr grabbed his shotgun. He killed one of attackers and mortally wounded the second. The other two were also hit and fled bleeding. Both were found by police and arrested. Augusto, obviously acting in self-defense, was not charged.

Had Mr. Augusto relied solely on the police for protection, rather than arming himself, at best he and his employees would have been robbed and possibly beaten. At worst he'd be lying dead, after the criminals decided it might be better not to leave witnesses. Fortunately he didn't have to find out what might have happened.

In New York City, one must have a permit to own a shotgun. The fees required to obtain a permit are prohibitive to the poor and would prevent them from owning a shotgun for defense:
The application fee is $140.00. The fingerprint fee is $94.25 for fingerprints done on the Livescan machine. If you require inked prints, the fee is $105.25. You may pay the fees with a credit card or two POSTAL MONEY ORDERS, BANK TELLER’S CHECKS OR CERTIFIED CHECKS. Cash is not accepted. Please make your money orders or checks payable to the “New York City Police Department.” No personal checks will be accepted. See all NYPD Requirements here.

These requirements literally restrict the rights of many citizens of New York City their rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Police Assume Unconstitutional Power to Take Away Your Guns After An Emergency

Unconstitutional Gun Confiscation After Katrina
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

by NRAVideos

The video you will see is horrifying. The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.

The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny—where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.

You’ve seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books—in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you’d never in a million years think it could happen in America. Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:

“No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them. Read Story and view video here.

This is the last time this should happen. We must make sure it does not happen again.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

The Obama Administration Blame Game


First, it was Bush administration that left a large deficit (which the Democrats tripled), then it was the Republicans. They are at fault that the president and his Democrat congress are having trouble selling the Health Care Program. The Republicans were not being "bi-partisan," in spite of the fact they were squeezed out of the process.

Next, it was the "protesters" at the various town hall meetings, conducted by mostly Democrat Senators and Congress Members, who have questioned the lack of knowledge of their elected representatives. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid labeled them as a "Mob," "Nazis," "Un-American," etc. The American citizens, exercising their democratic option at voicing their opinions at town hall meetings are at fault for the president's public option health care package not being accepted.

Also, the Republicans were again blamed, this time for "organizing" the opposition at the town hall meetings.

Then, it was the insurance companies that were to blame. This was the new object of blame at President Obama's town hall meeting yesterday (August 14), in Montana.

Could the blame really lie at the administration's trying to jam a so-called health care package down the throats of a majority of American citizens who do not want to turn control of their personal relationship with our doctors over to the government? Could it be most U.S. citizens recognize that the Democrat cabal wants to totally control every aspect of our lives? After all, we've seen them take over the banks, the U.S. auto industry, Insurance companies, and now doctor's offices and hospitals. And that they clearly want to replace our capitalism with Socialism, and even Marxism?

Yes, it could be! And the backlash is on the way.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Democrats Call Town Hall Objectors "Part of the Mob"


I just watched an interview between Neil Cavuto and a guest, California Congressman, Brad Sherman. I could not believe what I saw. Sherman played the Democrat party line that the Citizens attending various Town Hall meetings were thugs and members of a "Mob."

I heard similar comments from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It would seem like they have blinders on or that they don't believe anything that happens outside of the halls of congress. They no longer listen to those that elected them.

However, this may be music to my ears. If they keep on ignoring a majority of citizens, who according to recent polls, are against the government's present health care package, they will completely turn off the voters.

If the Republican Party succeeds in running genuine conservatives against the liberal Democrats in November 2010, they have a good chance of taking back the house and maybe the senate.

If the Republicans do not take control from the Democrats, we will all be in serious trouble, as the present national governing cabal is the most corrupt we have ever seen in the United States of America. May God help us all.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009


Administration support for a dangerous international treaty shows its disdain for the Constitution and America’s law-abiding gun owners.

America's 1st Freedom. August 2009

By Dave Kopel

The Obama administration’s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.

As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.”

If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer. Read rest of article here.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Zogby/O'Leary Poll Reveals Majority of Voters Will Oppose Senators Who Vote to Confirm an Anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Nominee

Strong Majority of Independents, Democrats and Obama Voters Support the Right to Carry a Firearm

(The O'Leary Report from the PR Web)

Washington, D.C. (Vocus/PRWEB ) August 3, 2009 -- Next week the full U.S. Senate will vote on whether or not to confirm President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Many analysts are predicting a mostly party-line vote, however, a recent poll conducted by Zogby International and The O'Leary Report may give Senators from both parties some pause. (The poll was conducted July 21-24, surveyed 4,470 voters, and has a margin-of-error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points.)
Zogby/O'Leary asked voters:

"Would you support or oppose a U.S. Senator who voted to confirm a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense?"

Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator.

Among Independent voters, 57 percent would oppose such a Senator, and only 17 percent would support. Forty-nine percent of young voters (age 18-29) would oppose a Senator who votes to confirm a nominee who does not believe Second Amendment rights apply to all Americans, and just 31 percent would support such a Senator... Read Story.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Do We Have What It Takes To Take Our Country Back From Those Currently Destroying It?


2009 handgun sales have increased in some states from 15 to 25% over last year. Several reasons are given by various experts and commentators for this phenomena. Many fear the Obama administration may limit the legal use of handguns for personal protection. Others fear the deteriorating economy will bring about food riots and other civil disturbances.

And for good reason. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, secular progressives who have wormed their way into the unions, city commissions, state governments, and into the Congress of the United States have begun controlling the direction of government away from federalism and state’s rights to a stronger federal government.

“The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912, and ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state” Wikipedia.

This was a blow to state’s rights as it took from the states, which according to the Constitution at its inception, permitted the states to be directly represented by their senators. Transferring the election of senators from state legislatures to the people have removed the state’s direct senatorial representatives and moved them into being more loyal to their parties and special interest groups than to the states they represent. This allows for a stronger central government.

Schools taken over by progressive controlled NEA, and the liberal AFT - American Federation of Teachers, which has more than one million members nationwide, and has grown into a trade union representing workers in education, health care, and public service. They control the writing of textbooks which teach children education institutions, not parents, are their guide. They discourage patriotism, conservatism, and creationism. They have succeeded in mentally kidnapping children from their more conservative parents. These now grown up children steeped in progressive philosophy elected our present administration.

Those wanting to take back our country need to roll up their sleeves, as it may be an up hill battle. Because, fighting you will be all of the progressive special interest groups, i.e., Planned Parenthood, Naral, anti-second amendment supporters, gay rights supporters, unions, liberal educators, liberal members of congress, and those currently running the Washington train, the pro-abortion cabal, including all of Obama appointees.

Are we up to the task? Are we willing to pressure our state legislatures to enforce the Tenth Amendment supporting state sovereignty? To vote to repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments? To do away with the Federal Reserve System and to return the control of our money to congress? Can we ask our state legislators to grant to all state residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit? You can not protect yourself if your handgun is at home locked in a safe with a trigger guard.

Those now in power mean to control every aspect of our lives and they will not willingly give up power. But let’s make up our minds to do what is necessary to take our country back. The alternative is a very bleak future for our children and grandchildren.

Saturday, August 1, 2009


By Charlie Reese
(I got this by email and thought it appropriate and timely to post--Rick)

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.