The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com. He grants that it may be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis. I continue with the price of liberty, and conclusion of his lengthy article.

Part 4

The Price of Liberty
Our founding fathers, legislators and justices have spoken eloquently upon the subject of liberty, the need to be prepared to defend our liberty; particularly from our own government.

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776

"They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster

"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." -- Alexander Hamilton

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis -- Olmstead vs. United States, United States Supreme Court, 1928

Supporting Quotes

The founders of our country, quoted below, make it quite clear that Americans possess an inherent right to keep and bear arms and that their main fear for our liberties came not from external forces, but from the very government they were in the process of founding. Any citizen who does not understand this need read no further to begin to gain the knowledge necessary to know why it is not only our right, but our responsibility, to be armed.

"A free people ought...to be armed..." -- George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers at 1848

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -- James Madison, 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington,

Conclusion
From the words of the founders of this country it is clear that the gun control laws enacted in this country are unconstitutional infringements upon our liberties and it is our right and responsibility to oppose, by arms if necessary, the tyranny of our own government. How great a folly it would be if we were to allow the very instrument of tyranny, government, to control whether we have the right to the means to resist tyranny! This is the folly, and danger, of gun control. If we will not put our press under the control of the government, why should we be willing to put the control of our arms, the means to defend the press and our liberties, under the control of the government? The answer is clear, we should not!

When the government attempts to limit the freedom of the free press through censorship, the press, the people, and the courts properly repulse it. When the government limits the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is engaging in another form of censorship, referred to the by the euphemism of "gun control". Let us call gun control what it is, an infringement of one of our natural and enumerated rights. Just as we correctly withstand government censorship of the press, so should we also resist the government’s attempt to control the right to keep and bear arms. Examples of such governmental tyranny on our right to keep and bear arms abound. We should not accept any limitation on any of our rights. One lesson we have learned from history is that when one right is infringed it emboldens the tyrant to attempt to infringe upon other rights as well.

The great men who founded this country trusted us to be the arbiter of our own fate by giving us a Constitution designed to limit the power of government. These great men trusted us to live our lives responsibly, free from the tyranny of government. Why don’t we trust ourselves, indeed demand of ourselves, to continue to do so? Upon such choices as face us today are our liberties, and that of our posterity, poised in the balance.

Two final thoughts:

"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." -- Charles A. Beard

Be that courageous citizen.

Selected quotes of interest:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." --Thomas Paine

"However controversial the meaning of the Second Amendment is today, it was clear enough to the generation of 1789. The amendment assured to the people "...their private arms, ..." said and article which received James Madison's approval and was the only analysis available to Congress when it voted. Subsequent contemporaneous analysis is epitomized by the first American commentary on the writings of William Blackstone. Where Blackstone described arms for personal defense as among the "...absolute rights of individuals..." at common law, his eighteenth century American editor commented that this right had been constitutionalized by the Second Amendment. Early constitutional commentators, including Joseph Story, William Rawle and Thomas M. Cooley, described the amendment in terms of a republican philosophical tradition stemming from Aristotle's observation that basic to tyrants is a "...mistrust of the people; hense they deprive them of arms." Political theorists from Cicero to John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rouseau also held arms possession to be symbolic of personal freedom and vital to the virtuous, self reliant citizenry (defending itself from encroachment by outlaws, tyrants and foreign invaders alike) that they deemed indispensable to poplar government.." -- Don B. Kates, Jr., Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, MacMillan Publishing Co, NY, 1986

"Disperse, you rebels -- Damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!" -- Maj. John Pitcairn, Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..." -- Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." -- Alexander Hamilton

"An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well-armed and free. The Swiss are well-armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants." -- Machiavelli -- The Prince; Chapter 17

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation's." -- James Madison

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." -- Noah Webster

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; -- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Selected quotes of interest from the enemies of liberty:

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms," --V.I. Lenin.

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves," -- Joseph Stalin

...We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- Rep. (now Sen.) Charles Schumer

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." -- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities-going to be very modest...So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again...Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the US-is going to take time....the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." -- Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. ("The New Yorker", July 26, 1976)

If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns... -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. -- Charles Krauthammer, Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

Part 3

Apologies to my regular blog followers. Sometime back, I began a series on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally in searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article: If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com. He grants that it may be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis. I continue with Point 4 of his lengthy article.

Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You
Point 4
By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
Point 4: The Arms of a Free People. The arms referred to by the Second Amendment and the founders of this country are the arms necessary for the free people of America to be able to hold their governments unbridled appetite for power in check and to resist invaders when called upon to serve in the militia in defense of our country, state or community. If the arms of the soldiers of this era are automatic rifles, machine guns and sub-machine guns then it is the right, in fact the obligation, for the citizens of this country to possess such arms themselves. It is laughable on its face, as some have stated, that the Second Amendment would grant to us the right to only have flintlocks or muskets, such weapons as were in use at the time of our countries founding, to defend ourselves against an armed force raised by the government to oppress us, or to defend against an invading enemy. This would be the same as saying, concerning the First Amendment, that the press could only use the printing technology that existed at the time of the Revolution while the government could use movies, television, radio, modern printing presses, the Internet and any other means of communications that it desired. A ridiculous thought isn't it? If it's ridiculous for the First Amendment, why is it any less ridiculous for the Second Amendment? Our rights are not "frozen in a moment of time", they are eternal rights and we are free to use our ingenuity to advance the technology to ensure those rights. If anything, we have the rights to limit the governments use of technology, not the other way around.

Surely, our founding fathers meant for us to have arms that would allow us to meaningfully resist, better yet, deter the government from any attempt at tyranny. No doubt this is a shocking position to the ignorant masses that have been lied to by their government, the press and the educational institutions of this country that our Second Amendment right exists only so we can have single shot sporting arms for such purposes as hunting, target shooting, etc., or that the Second Amendment is a right of the states to maintain armed militias. The following quotes ably put to rest both of these specious arguments:

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2

"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." -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"...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 remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify if a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Second and First Amendment Paralleled

If you are in doubt about whether the Second Amendment is still valid and important to you, even if you choose not to own a gun, consider this:

If the government were to pass legislation to limit your First Amendment right to criticize the government in any form, would you be upset? Would you consider your rights had been unconstitutionally infringed? Would you still feel free? Of course you would be upset and, no, you wouldn’t still be free, because one of the bedrock's of our freedom is the ability to freely speak our minds on any subject, particularly criticizing those we have elected to govern us. It is the basis upon which this country was founded, and when we lose that right, we stop being citizens and become subjects.

While you may not have considered it in the same light, the Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment. We must support the Second Amendment, with the same fervor that we support the First Amendment. Why? Because our liberties were won at the point of a gun, and the sad reality of this world is that ultimately they can only be maintained at the point of a gun.

Let me ask you this? When the government outlaws free speech, what will you do to oppose it? Write letters of protest? No, that's now against the law. Protest in the streets? No, that's now against the law too. When speech is suppressed and tyranny reigns, only the sound of the gun will be heard. This seems extreme to today's pampered, cowed society, but in the end it will be the only means left to protect the First Amendment when the government finds it inconvenient for us to exercise our right of free speech and religion. However, if our guns have been confiscated, or simply limited to weapons ineffective against an oppressing government, then how will we restore our liberties? The answer, of course, is we won't be able to.

If you think that such a situation can’t happen then you have failed to learn the lessons of history. We must all guard jealously the rights we are endowed with by our Creator…ALL of them, not just the ones we like, from the tyranny of government control.

Milton Freidman: Greed

The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

Larry Elder

The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off. Read article on Townhall dot com.

Many of us in the press and in the blogosphere knew the Democrats were hypocrites and liars. I posted the names several times in this and my other web site. Rather than post them again, I will list the web site that does have them all, including Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and scores of others. Click Here for list of Democrats.

Yep, like I said. Democrats are liars and hypocrites. One of many reasons I, and multiple thousands of others are no longer Democrats.

WE THE PEOPLE

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

November 24, 2010 by John Myers
Personal Liberty Digest, All Rights Reserved

Tomorrow is perhaps America’s most important holiday, and it comes amidst the most positive change that has happened in a generation.

The Tea Party led the GOP to victory and it has given new hope to America. Furthermore, it is the Tea Party that has inspired many to challenge a leftist President and overthrow a liberal House of Representatives. It is the Tea Party that is setting a new course; one based on the blueprints that built this great nation. Read entire article from Personal Liberty Digest.

It is important that the Tea Party, and we bloggers who are either members of the Tea Party, or supporters, keep ourselves vigilant and hold our newly elected representatives feet to the fire. We also need to keep in mind what it says in 2 Chronicles chapter 7, verse 14,

"if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

Fellow Christians, do you understand that the healing of our land is up to us?

Thanksgiving: A Time to Count our Blessings

Thanksgiving is not just about turkey, but a time to count our blessings

Pilgrims in Plymouth Colony held their first Thanksgiving in fall 1621 in what is now Massachusetts. They invited the Wampanoag Indians who had helped them to the feast celebrating the bountiful harvest.

This also was an occasion to give thanks to God for their survival through the previous brutal winter. Eau Claire Leader-Telegram.

The precise historical origin of our present Thanksgiving day is disputed. There is evidence of other Thanksgiving events for earlier celebrations than the Thanksgiving that occurred in 1621 at Plymouth, Massachusetts, but this is what our Thanksgiving day is based on.

Several U.S. presidents throughout our history have proclaimed that Thanksgiving as a holiday be observed on a specific day. Today, in the United States Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. In Canada it is celebrated on the second Monday of October.

The important thing is that we take time out to than God for the blessings he has given us. It is not “Turkey Day,” a term which I despise and which detracts from the day’s purpose. We are a Christian nation, despite what President Obama has said to the Islamic nations. Thanksgiving day is so important to the American people, that more of our citizens travel on this holiday than they do for Christmas.

Why We Celebrate Thanksgiving Part I

Some schools are now teaching that the Colonists in Massachusetts were celebrating their being thankful that the Indians helped them during a period of drought. Today, historical revisionists have present multiple versions of the origin of Thanksgiving. There are liberal, antheist, anti-Chrisitan, and Native Ameerican versions of the origin of this American and Christian holiday. In the days prior to Thanksgiving 2010, I wish to present the arrival of the Pilgrims and what we call the first Thanksgiving, upon which is based our present celebration of Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of November.

The passengers aboard the Mayflower were looking for a place where they could establish a land where they could worship as they pleased. These passengers were Pilgrims who were persecuted in England by the established state church. While enroute to the New World, they developed a legal document called the "Mayflower Compact."

The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was written by the colonists, later together known to history as the Pilgrims, who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower. Almost half of the colonists were part of a separatist group seeking the freedom to practice Christianity according to their own determination and not the will of the English Church. It was signed on November 11, 1620 (OS)[1] by 41 of the ship's one hundred and two passengers,[2] in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod.

The original document was lost, but the transcriptions in Mourt's Relation and William Bradford's journal Of Plymouth Plantation are in agreement and accepted as accurate. Bradford's hand written manuscript is kept in a special vault at the State Library of Massachusetts. Bradford's transcription is as follows:

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 Honour 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. Source: Wikipedia.

Contrary to what some anti-Christian revisionists of historical truth falsely teach, the original passengers of the Mayflower were Christians looking for a place to worship freely.

Kansas Passes Right to Bear Arms

Kansas State Rifle Association News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2010

Right To Bear Arms Vote Sets A National Record!

(Bonner Springs, KS) - The citizens of Kansas voted overwhelmingly on November 2nd to insure that their Second Amendment rights are never questioned in Kansas.

Voters decided with 710,255 votes (89% of votes cast) that the Kansas Constitution should be changed to insure that every individual has the right to bear arms in Kansas. Only 91,004 persons (11% of votes cast) declared they did not want this change made.

It was a great victory and shows how important the people of Kansas believe this issue is. This was a record setting vote as no other gun rights initiative has passed with this overwhelming of a vote in the entire country.

The previous record was set in 1986 when West Virginia voters approved their Constitutional Amendment with an 83.6% approval.

Article 4 of the Kansas Constitution will now read, "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

The Kansas State Rifle Association worked with the NRA and Senator Mike Petersen and several other members of the Kansas legislature to pass a resolution to provide for this new language and get it placed on the ballot for this general election.

The Kansas State Rifle Association would like to thank everyone who assisted in educating the voters about this amendment. It was a huge effort to inform voters to make sure they understood what was being done and why it needed to be done. Volunteers spent countless hours passing out bumper stickers, flyers and yard signs and explaining the issue to citizens.

Our voices have been heard loud and clear and the Second Amendment prevails in the great State of Kansas!

Is America Owned By the Chinese?

On October 21, 2010, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) unveiled a national ad addressing our country’s spending addiction, the dangers of relentless deficits, and the corrosive nature of our national debt.

This new ad, which features a chilling look at one potential future scenario if America continues on its current destructive fiscal trajectory, is a 2010 homage to “The Deficit Trials,” a 1986 ad that was produced by W.R. Grace & Co. For those who were able to view it, the ad caused a sensation; it was considered so controversial at the time that the networks refused to run it.

Please help us fight wasteful, deficit spending by sharing this video with your friends:

The First Amendment According to NPR & Media Matters

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion except Islam, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech unless it violates politically correct speech or criticizes marxism or Islam; or of the press with the exception of Fox News and Conservative radio; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble with the exception of the Tea Party, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances being a right restricted to the unions, minority organizations, the New Black Panthers, La Raza, and Democrats.

Don't Expect Democrats to Take the Coming Conservative Tsunami Peacefully

As soon as our conservative friends take their seats in congress, the Democrats will make an attempt to intimidate them. They are already telling the poor that Republicans will take away their benefits. They are telling African-Americans they will take away what gains they have made under the Democrats.

What gains? Black unemployment is higher in comparison to White unemployment than it was 18 months ago. That they will 'whack,' 'cut,' and repeal all that the Obama administration has done for them.

"They're counting on young people staying home and union members staying home and black folks staying home," President Obama said at a rally in Philadelphia. Source. They tell their base that Tea-Party backed congressmen and women are 'bigots,' and 'racists,' and that they 'hate' gays.

However, from what I've seen so far from the left, including Liberal Democrats, They don't like it a bit when they do not get their way. Look what happened recently when Bill O'Reilly went on The View. Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg stomped out of the room in a tantrum when Mr. O'Reilly disagreed with them.

Every time the Republicans block some progressive legislation, with help from some Democrats no doubt, they will take it to some of their 400 special interest group supporters, and they will take it to the street and demonstrate, i.e.; they will throw an orchestrated tantrum. They have done this for years, and they won't change now.

We are in for a very interesting time just ahead of us.

Tell Your Senators to Oppose the UN Small Arms Treaty

Click Here to sign petition

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

Part 2

In searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article: If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com. I continue with Points 2 and 3 of his lengthy article.

By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
May be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis.Point 2: The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights. While the Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights, the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment to the Constitution states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Bill of Rights is not intended to be an inclusive statement of our rights. All of our rights are to be equally protected under the Constitution, whether enumerated or not. The Constitution, in general, and Bill of Rights, in particular, are intended to be limitations upon the power of the federal government.

Point 3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Inviolable Personal Right. It is clear from the words of the men who founded this country that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an inviolable personal right and that there are good reasons for it to exist and to be protected by the Second Amendment. This is not a subject for debate, except for those ignorant of our history or those that purposely wish to debase the American citizenry under the tyranny of government and ultimately into subjugation. Anyone who holds the position that the American people do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, or that it may be legislated away through gun control laws, is ignorant of the basis upon which this country was founded; including the means by which the founders intended for us to maintain our personal liberties.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on 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 in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"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 to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

I would like to point out in Mason's article, he states two things is one sentence: 1. That The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and 2. the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights.

The rights are already there as the creators of the constitution believed, that they were granted by God, and should be rights to all people on the earth. But sadly, this is not the case by far. The Bill of Rights is to limitthe power of the federal government--created by the states to serve the states and its citizens.

In God We Trust

NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER!

I received this by email and it is worth sharing:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an
Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cutback." So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn’t think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency....the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??
It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977,


TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2010 -- 33 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")


33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.
Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.

NOW WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY
TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Hello!! Anybody Home?

Let's repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, modify the 14th, disband the Federal Reserve System, and vote in term limits.

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

On July 8th, of this summer, I began a series on the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, by covering the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Rights and Abuses.

In searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article, which I will re-post in several parts. I may occasionally add comments of my own. If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com.

Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You

By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
May be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis.

"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." -- Second Amendment, United States Constitution

"That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." -- Tennessee Constitution, Article I - Declaration of Rights, Section 26

Across our nation a debate rages about "gun control". This euphemism glosses over the fact that what is being debated is one of the most precious guarantors of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms. At the heart of this debate is not whether the right to keep and bears arms is an individual right or not, but at its core the debate is over the primacy of the individual over the primacy of the government. This debate rages because many, too many, in this country have forgotten, or, worse, have never been educated in, the nature of our rights.

Government and liberty are natural adversaries. The founders of our nation understood this. With that understanding in mind they crafted a Constitution and a Bill of Rights designed to limit the power of government and guarantee the rights of the people. The rights that they intended to protect were those written about in the Declaration of Independence and other un-enumerated rights, e.g. the natural, inalienable rights of man.

The Basis of Our Rights:

Point 1: Government does not grant rights. If we were to assign to government the authority to grant rights, then we would also have to acknowledge the government's power to take rights away. Surely, we can all see the dangers of allowing governments formed by men being in the position of assigning our rights to us. Today's right would be tomorrow's crime. Such is the quixotic nature of mankind. The reason we have a Republic and not a pure democracy is because the founders of this country understood the tyrannical nature of a pure democracy. Rather than trusting the wisdom of men, our founders looked to another source as the basis of our rights… the Creator of the Universe.

Let us examine this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Our Founding Fathers stated unequivocally that our rights came not from men, nor governments, but from our Creator. Since our rights are from our Creator and therefore preceded the founding of this country, the government has no authority to deprive us of our rights no matter how unpopular they might become with the government, or even the majority of the people. The Declaration of Independence continues:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

and continues:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."

It is clear from the above that our government does not grant us our rights, but rather was formed to ensure our rights; and when our government fails in its duties to effectively secure our rights, we have the right to abolish that government and form a new one that will effectively ensure our rights.

It is quite obvious from our Constitution, that our government was set up to protect God-given rights, which should be the case for all nations. Governments seem to be in the business to take away the rights of its citizens, which ours seems hell bent on doing.

To continue in subsequent posts . . .

The Religion of the Liberal Left

Rick's Commentary--

The the past several weeks, while relaxing from our move from Kansas to Oklahoma, I've been participating in several on-line forums, and reading blogs and the comments made to them. I've come to some very disturbing conclusions. Those on the left are totally blinded to the truth of what is happening to our beloved country. They spue hateful comments, while accusing conservatives of being racist and full of hate. And why is this? They have been brainwashed by our educational system.

Education used to be primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. I remember as a child, our parents attending a local PTA, and a local Board of Education, not unified district meetings. In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. The agency incorporated much of the educational components of the 1960s and 1970s, along with more and more control of the states' educations. Today, virtually all aspects of educating our youth are managed by the Department of Education.

I learned from students of our current educational system what they are learning. Some schools--not all, are telling the students that Capitalism is the source of most of our economic problems. One person told me that their teachers told them not to listen to their parents or grandparents, as they are probably conservative, and not a reliable source of information.

What began in the ivy league colleges in the East in the 1600 and 1700s, e.g., liberals infiltration of schools designed to train pastors, has spread to other colleges, to high schools, and now to elementary schools. Our young people are being programmed for a socialist society.

Journalists, social workers, government workers, elected representatives, even some pastors, union leaders, and others in society, were brainwashed by these same professors and teachers into hating our way of life in the United States, to the point of wanting to change to another system. The suggested system is a form of Marxism, i.e., socialism or communism, i.e., take from those that have and distribute it to those that do not have as much.

In conclusion, we have a society, in which citizens in all walks of life believe that all are entitled the same as the rich. It is a belief that is so rooted in the believers that it has become a 'religion,' as deeply founded as any legitimate religion anywhere. That is why they teach the flawed 'separation of church and state,' as they want no competition, especially competition that teaches truth. The left is not open-minded. The left has become vicious in condemning those with whom they do not agree. Without substance, they employ 'ad hominem' tactics against conservatives, Christians, the Tea Party, and others with whom they disagree. Their liberal or progressive beliefs are so strong, they believe those who do not agree as being 'wrong.'

And arguing, discussing issues with them, and trying to arrange a meeting of minds with them, is useless and a waste of time.

We must not only win in November, but afterward, we must do away with the Department of Education, and return the control of our schools locally. If we do not do that, what we gain in November will only last a short while, before it gets out of control again. We must then be pro-active in teaching again the aims of our forefathers, the U.S. Constitution, and the rule-of-law it preserves.

Explains a lot, does it not?

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” (Ecclesiastes 10:2--NIV).

Things haven't changed much!

"One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors." Plato

Why Are Only Illegal Aliens Exempt from Showing ID?

I'm back, and I'll resume with a Gem from Jefferson

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

I guess we've found that out by now, haven't we?

Immigration Laws of Mexico

The Laws of Mexico on Immigration

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
3... All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Now, what's all this noise about Arizona Law SB 1070?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution: The First Amendment

I hope to post a series on the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and how they have been used and abused.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The framers of the constitution desired to restrain the power of the proposed federal government, and created the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution. The First Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791.

To begin with, the First Amendment forbids the congress of the United States from establishing a state religion, e.g., as England did in their established church, The Church of England, the Anglican Church. Those on the left confuse this with “separation of church and state.” What they really mean is “separation of church and God,” as they want no interference with a God who requires being responsible for our actions.

Secondly, the amendment prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. This also in misunderstood by the left, as they try to prevent prayers in school, in any governmental operation, forgetting that congress and the supreme court begin the day with prayer.

Thirdly, the amendment prohibits government from preventing the free speech of citizens in pointing out inequities of government, its officials, and even laws passed. Again, the left misinterprets this phrase. It was meant to be applied to free expressions of faith and religion, and in political speech. But, they have extended it to cover the burning of the flag of the United States, to protect pornography, and in some cases libel and slander.

Fourthly, it protects the freedom of the press to correctly and truthfully point out problems with government, i.e., corruption mainly along with false dealings with each other and the taxpayers. The press was given special First Amendment privileges as the “Fourth Estate.” The press was to be a “watchdog” to the government, and not meant to be a “cheer-leader” of it as much of the press seems to be today, overlooking corruption as the government’s ideology seems to be congruent with their own.

Fifthly, the amendment gives the right of the citizens to peacefully assemble in opposition to an increasing government and more taxation, as with the current assemblies of the Tea Party movement. Contrast this with the riots associated with leftist “demonstrations,” in their non-peaceful assemblies, demanding rights not enumerated in the constitution.

Sixthly, the amendment gives the people the right to sue the government for wrongdoing, made illegal in some jurisdictions, and to lobby the government. This originally pertained to individuals, not special interest groups, as it has grown to today.

We need to return to the original intent of the First Amendment, and protect the rights of states and individual citizens against a growing tyranny of the federal government.

The Declaration of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress,
John Hancock, President.

Happy Independence Day!

Freedom = Independence! Let's all vote in the Primaries and General Election in November to keep it that way.

Invasion! U.S. 'sanctuary city' succumbs to illegals

1st municipality to fire all public employees after being forced into bankruptcy

Posted: June 28, 2010
12:56 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A California "sanctuary city" has fallen victim to illegal immigration – going bankrupt and firing all of its public employees, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

The city of Maywood, Calif., hit the budget wall after it decided not only to be a sanctuary city, but to be a completely "safe haven" for illegal aliens seeking protection from deportation.
. . .
"Crushed by the recession and falling tax revenues, the city is disbanding the police force and firing all public-sector employees," Matthew Garrahan wrote in the Financial Times, never mentioning that illegal immigration was the problem. Read Story Here.

Anyone surprised?

Christian Speech Rights Suspended in Dearborn, Michigan

Michigan police arrest Christians for sharing faith
Print This Post Print This Post

June 23, 2010 by The Underground Staff
Filed under Commentary and News, Featured

Four Christians were arrested and jailed recently at Dearborn, Mich. for alleged “disorderly conduct” and “disruptive behavior” at an Arab festival, the Detroit Free Press said. Read story at The Underground.

I would urge the missionaries to sue the police department for violating their civil rights.

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Source: Wikipedia.

Free exercise of religion
Main article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Warren Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to this clause, holding that a state must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting religious activities. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religion. The Congress attempted to restore this standard by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held that such an attempt was unconstitutional regarding state and local government actions (though permissible regarding federal actions). See Wikipedia.

Imagine What Teachers are Showing their Students

Is President Obama the Antichrist?

How many people, mostly fundamental Christians, are looking for a powerful figure who will be heading up a one world power who will become a worldwide dictator? I don’t know how many emails I’ve received that proclaim that Barack Obama is the False Prophet or the antichrist. Well, we do not have to wait any longer to find out.

I personally do not believe the president is the antichrist. However, the spirit of anti-Christ is already with us today. In fact the Apostle John confirms this. 1 John 2:18 ". . . it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists. . ." Verse 22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

An Associated Press writer asks, "Is everything spinning out of control?" A Wall Street Journal headline read, "Millennium Fever: Prophets Proliferate, The End is Near." A New York Times book review began, "Some 50 million Americans share a belief that these are the last days." Even the Chicago Tribune ran a front-page story about the end times in a recent Sunday edition. Source.

Many believe we are in the last days as prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments. But, we have been living in the last days (last times) since The days of Christ and the apostles.
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:2, KJV).

The majority of the founding fathers were Christians, in spite of historical revisionists who claim they were not, who established a government based on Judeo-Christian principles--principles based on both the Jewish “Holy Scriptures,” and the Christian “New Testament.”

Jack Ewing: Progressives revising history to remove our Christian foundation
One of the many big lies the progressives have fed us over the years is that the United States is not and never was a nation of primarily Christian citizens. They have simply revised the history of our country to promote their aim to take our Christian foundation out from under us because they recognize, just as our founding fathers did, that it is essential to the success of a constitutional republic such as ours. Source.

Progressives have a real problem with acknowledging a God who requires responsibility for our actions. They are especially sensitive to Christianity, whose founder and living head is the only way to live forever with him in his spiritual kingdom. Christianity is a great hindrance to the progressive program. And in like manner as progressives deny the Bible, they also deny the original intent of the constitution, as it also is a hindrance against their one world goal.

From the New American

I provided this brief lesson on American history for you, reader, to lay the foundations for what you are about to read. When the Progressives realized what it was that stood in their way of transforming America — God, Constitution, and the Founding Fathers — they reconsidered their agenda, and slowly but surely have dismantled these elements that were at the core of American values. The Founding Fathers have been portrayed as “rich white racists,” the Constitution has been distorted beyond recognition, and God has been removed from daily life. The New American.

Marxism is the religion the progressives want to unite with the state. Progressives must get rid of all forms of Christianity as it is an embarrassing hindrance to ‘abortion on demand;’ ‘amnesty for illegal aliens,’ which is contrary to the rule of law; ‘redistribution of wealth,’ legal robbery; enforced ‘health care;’ radical environmental laws, which have many elements of the New Age philosophy–the worship of Gaia, mother earth, all which ultimately leads to a dictatorship to force compliance. This is why they are paranoid about the Second Amendment, which I believe the founding fathers left us as a final protection against an abusive government.

Yes, the spirit of antichrist is here today, and is present in all modern secular education, the leftist news media, many unions, the ACLU, new age, and the Democrat Party, which has been taken over by the progressive movement, lock, stock, and barrel. We do not have to wait any longer. The important question is, what are we going to do about it?

So You Want to Take Your Country Back 5

This is the last article in this series. We began with voting for candidates who promise to enact legislation to create term limits.

Then, we followed with the repeal of the sixteenth amendment, taking economic power from politicians which they use to enhance their positions, and then repealing the seventeenth amendment returning each senator’s loyalties from their political parties back to their states, and effectively strengthening state’s rights.

Now, having watched the development of the Tea Party movement, analyzing their platforms and seeing the hateful rhetoric of the left against them, I believe we should vote for those candidates backed by the tea party. This way we would be electing candidates who are for small government, low taxes, and a return to constitutional government.

I was originally thinking about voting for candidates who are strong supporters of the second amendment. However, candidates for small government, low taxes, and a return to government according to the constitution, are also pro-second amendment.

I’ve seen lists by various well-known conservatives with long lists, some 20 or more requirements for those candidates we should vote for. However, the more suggestions, the more confusing. Voting for candidates that subscribe to the above few points would bring about the many changes recommended by conservatives, and would return our government to constitutional principles.

November is coming quickly, and we need to be getting our ducks in a row.

Rand Paul promises to be 'vigilant' protector of gun rights

By Joseph Gerth • jgerth@courier-journal.com • June 12, 2010

Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul told gun enthusiasts that if elected, he'll work to ensure that Congress doesn't pass any legislation that would restrict their rights to own weapons.

"I'm a proud defender of the Second Amendment," he told a group around him at the Great Eastern National Gun Day Show and JAG Military Show at the Kentucky Exposition Center.

"We must be ever vigilant of our Second Amendment rights. We must continually remind Washington that a majority cannot vote to take away our Second Amendment rights," he said. Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY

Those who caused the BP oil crisis are its greatest critics!

Democrats Return BP’s Campaign Donations So the Money Can Be Put Toward Environmental Cleanup Source
Commentary

How hypocritical? Will they also return the donations made to them by the left wing environmentalists, whose lobbying over the years led to a moratorium on building oil refineries and nuclear energy plants? I doubt it. It is their combined fault that oil companies, mostly foreign, are drilling off shore.

Democrats supported by environmental groups continually vote against domestic oil, gas, and coal production.

Republicans also are guilty:

House Republicans who received campaign donations from environmental groups helped make up the narrow margin of votes needed to send the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill over to the U.S. Senate.

The legislation passed by a vote of just 219 to 212 on Friday with critical assistance from eight Republicans. They are: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Chris Smith (N.J.). This support proved critical with 44 Democrats voting against the regulatory scheme.

Political Action Committees (PACs) connected with the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Ocean Champions and Republicans for Environmental Protection have made donations to most of these same eight Republican lawmakers in recent election cycles, according to OpenSecrets.Org.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:
.

Those who are the loudest in condemning BP, are those who are the cause of this ecological disaster. They should hang their heads in shame. But they won’t! Because they think arrogantly think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

During this year’s primaries and in November, we have a chance to throw out those who have caused all of our current economic, social, and environmental disasters.

We The People. . .

Massachusetts' Senate Surprises Many With Strict Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill

Is Arizona catching on?

Senate vote hits illegal residents
Measure restricts immigrants’ access to state services
By Noah Bierman and Maria Sacchetti
Globe Staff / May 28, 2010

The Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown yesterday on illegal immigrants and those who hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a measure of just how politically potent illegal immigration has become, the Senate, on a 28-10 vote, replaced a far milder budget amendment it had passed Wednesday. The sweeping provision, if it makes it into law, would toughen or expand rules that bar illegal immigrants from public health care, housing, and higher education benefits.

The amendment would also clear the way for courts, the state attorney general, and even average citizens to get new tools, including an anonymous hot line, to report illegal immigrants or companies that employ them to the government. Read more at Boston.com.

Five other states are considering a law similar to that passed recently by Arizona, but the Massachusetts senate has beat them with a far reaching bill that affects employment, housing, and welfare. The question is, will the governor Deval Patrick sign or veto it?

I’d Like To Ask Some Embarrassing Questions About the Arizona Immigration Law!

Commentary
by Rick

Here is my questions to President Obama, to La Raza, to the unions, and to others who are participating in which are obviously orchestrated demonstrations against Arizona for passing a law making illegal immigration, illegal:

Why are you bringing race into this? And if, so, why are you neglecting the real racism here? Have you noticed that those who are coming across the border are not white? I wonder why this is. Have you notice that they are mostly mestizos, i.e., a person of mixed racial ancestry, especially mixed European and Native American ancestry? And most mestizos are obviously darker than Caucasians.

In truth, the demonstrations are really against whites, more specifically white men. It is racism injected into the Arizona law issue by the federal administration, La Raza, and many left wing organizations. Now, white men may be culpable, but which white men? Could it be that the whites that govern not only Mexico, but most of South America, are descended from European Caucasians? Yet the president of Mexico had the gall to call the law racist! What is he doing to curb racism in his country?

Are you familiar with the Spanish language novelas on Spanish speaking tv stations showing white hacendados with white clad peasant employees, white managers in business, government? Exceptions usually portray a white land owner who falls in love with his maid. The caste system in Mexico, and other countries, have created the lack of opportunity for the poor indio and mestizo causing them to come over the border looking for a better life. One can not blame them, but the problem lies south of Arizona, not in Arizona.

I have a copy of the Arizona law. It forbids racial profiling, yet, many on the left, some knowing better, claim it is racist and will result in racial profiling. This is not true any more than any other of the thousands of laws in Arizona and in other states.

Those on the left are guilty of deliberate misrepresentations, and yes, deliberate lies! To the progressives who favor open borders, who are the real racists, they will use any means to the ends which they desire for a socialist America.

© Copyright 2010. May be quoted in its entirety by non-commercial web sites if due credit is given.

Student Suspended for Removing Mexican Flag from a Prominent Place in His School

It is time we put a stop to this unpatriotic nonsense. Just a day after the incident in San Francisco, we hear of this story:

Local School Suspends Student for Removing MEXICAN Flag

Yesterday, a [News Radio 740-KTRH] listener’s son was offended that his school, Klein Collins High School, displayed the Mexican flag prominently. His mother called to complain, and the school wouldn’t return her call. The student took the sign down.

The school pitched a fit, reviewed the surveillance tapes, found the student, and suspended him for 3 days. AND he has to pay for the flag. In light of the SF story of students sent home for wearing the AMERICAN flag because it offended the Hispanic students, I thought you’d like to know about a story closer to home.
. . .
You realize, I assume, that if a student removed – or even burned – the AMERICAN flag, they wouldn’t do anything about it, I’ll bet. Story at KTRH, Houston.

The Related California incident:

A handful of California students got an unexpected lesson at their high school this week: Don't wear your stars and stripes on Cinco de Mayo.

Five Morgan Hill, California students were asked to take off their American flag bandannas and turn their T-shirts inside out after students complained, according to NBC news in San Francisco. Read More at nydaylynews.

April 2010: Storm Troopers Protect Obama from Tea-Partiers

This is an absolute shame to see this on Television News Shows. Are we coming to where the right to peacefully assemble will soon be restricted, or intimidated?

Amendment 1, of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Riot police shield Obama from tea-party grandmas
Rooftop snipers eye patriots singing 'God Bless America'
Posted: April 29, 2010
9:40 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Patriotic tea partiers in Quincy, Ill. (photo: Jim Hoft of BigGovernment.com)

When hundreds of tea-party protesters – including many elderly women – gathered outside a civic center where President Obama was giving a public speech Wednesday, they were surprised to be greeted by police dispatched in full riot gear. Read story here.

Where did the riot police come from? Were they locals? Whoever they are, they should be ashamed of themselves. They should be individually charged with violating the (constitutional) civil rights of all of the tea party members assembled.

So You Want To Take Your Country Back--Part 4!

Part 4–Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

What is the Seventeenth Amendment, and why should it be repealed? 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 to the U.S. Constitution:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

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 founders wanted the United States to be a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. There is a major difference.

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. After the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators gradually became more loyal to their political parties than to the states they represented.

Now, to bring this all to the present in the Senate. If the original provision for selecting senators were still in effect, the states could have had 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. Now, various states are passing laws or preparing state constitutional amendments nullifying certain provisions of the recently passed Obamacare bill.

In the primaries and general election in November 2010, we must select senators and members of the House of Representatives who will have in their platforms, a promise to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and to return certain sovereign rights back to the individual states.

Is the FDA Overstepping Its Authority Again?

Commentary--

For years, the FDA has been making decisions on food which in some cases, involve intrastate, not interstate commerce.

FDA hearing to examine salt reduction

By Lorraine Heller, 27-Nov-2007

The US government will this week re-examine its position on salt, a move that could ultimately lead to new regulations and limits governing the use of the compound.

The public hearing, which will take place on Thursday, is a long-awaited move by health advocates who have long been campaigning for stricter limits to be placed on the levels of salt in processed foods. Read more at Food Navigator.

I hope the states are alert on this latest move, and ensure that products made, distributed, sold, and purchased by consumers within the state's borders are not subject to these proposed directives limiting salt in processed food products. These food laws should be constitutionally made by each state.

You Can Not Argue With a Liberal!

Arguing with modern liberals is a lost cause
Commentary--

I have learned long ago not to argue with today’s liberals, who are not really liberals in the classic sense as were our country’s founders, but are marxist progressives. As Ann Coulter has said, there is something wrong mentally with progressive thinking. They are so stuck on themselves as being right, they can not consider the opinions of others as even having merit.

I’m 78 and have studied progressive goals from when they began to infiltrate the ivy league colleges, turning them from schools designed to develop pastors into liberal institutions. The now liberal institutions have created students into liberal teachers and instructors for other colleges, and finally into high schools, and even into grade schools.

Progressive Professors teach their students that we older citizens are brainwashed in conservatism, and they should not listen to us but to consider us as uninformed and out of touch. Grade and High School children are subjected to audiovisual materials teaching that we are a warlike nation. They are taught that our economic problems are caused by capitalism. They are taught that their schooling makes them better informed than they are. And if they buy into that, they will teach their own children to disbelieve them when they become older parents.

Today’s members of the fourth estate, given special first amendment rights to be a watchdog on our government, have become part and parcel with their leftist fellow travelers, betraying their original intent.

We, as conservatives, have a real battle ahead. Because, I do believe those now in power will not give up easily, and may refuse to step down if they lose. Unions have already begun to stir up trouble with FOX, especially Glenn Beck and Hannity, and the Tea Party, hoping for confrontations. I believe they may create a crisis in which the president may declare martial law.

I do not believe they will give up without a fight! We need to be vigilant. Our nation is in more peril than many of our citizens that have been asleep believe. But, I am encouraged as I believe a sleeping giant is being awakened in the Tea Party Movement, second amendment, and other organizations that have formed to take us back to the constitution. We shall see in November.

CNN Tells Balanced Story of Tea Party Rallies

Kudos to CNN and The San Francisco Sentinel

Stereotypes don't tell whole story of the Tea Party Movement

By Shannon Travis
Political Producer
CNN

When it comes to the Tea Party movement, the stereotypes don’t tell the whole story.

Here’s what you often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: offensive posters blasting President Obama and Democratic leaders; racist rhetoric spewed from what seems to be a largely white, male audience; and angry protesters rallying around the Constitution.

Case in point: During the health care debate last month, opponents shouted racial slurs at civil rights icon Georgia Rep. John Lewis and one person spit on Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. The incidents made national headlines, and they provided Tea Party opponents with fodder to question the movement.

But here’s what you don’t often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper. Read story in the San Francisco Sentinel here.

Kan. Campuses Move Closer To Concealed Carrying Board Of Regents, KU Oppose Bill

POSTED: 3:57 pm CDT March 24, 2010
UPDATED: 4:49 pm CDT March 24, 2010

LAWRENCE, Kan. -- With eight votes in the Kansas House, public college campuses got one step closer on Wednesday to allowing people to carry concealed weapons.

The bill passed on Wednesday would allow anyone with a concealed gun license who is over 21-years-old to bring a weapons to any of the state's public higher education institutions. The only exception would be if the building was deemed to have adequate security measures, such as metal detectors inside.

On the University of Kansas campus, there are signs posted that say no weapons are allowed inside, but there are no metal detectors. Read article at KCTV5 on line News.

So You Want To Take Your Country Back!

Part 3: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

The only way we can really take our country back and restore it to follow constitutional government, is to elect truly conservative citizens to our state legislatures, the governors’ offices, and both houses of Congress this fall.

We must elect congressmen and congresswomen who will promise to legislate term limits as I wrote in my second post in this series. As a part of this action which will limit the ability of our elected representatives to establish themselves in positions of power, we must elect only those representatives who promise to work with others to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which states, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Is the amendment unconstitutional, since it is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? What if it conflicts with other provisions of the constitution? But, what if it were never properly ratified? The web site, The Law That Never Was, has a good argument with statistics to back up the claim.

Arguments go back and forth on both sides. The Sixteenth Amendment only authorizes congress to collect only two types of taxes, i.e., direct or indirect, but these have specific definitions. More information can be found at Restoring the Republic...One Citizen At A Time.

Whoever is right, several things are obvious about our current tax code. 1) IRS collection tactics deny us Due process, 2) We are guilty until proven innocent, 3) And it provides congress almost unlimited control to spend on earmarks and pork projects.