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.
Source:
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

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

Commentary---Rick

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!

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.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted by permission from FreedomTorch.com: http://www.freedomtorch.com/2619/blog/Posted: 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: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

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

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton, Texas

'MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL'

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.
God

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.

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.

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!

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.