Saturday, December 31, 2011

Part 2. The Founders of the Constitution clearly intended for the Bible to be taught in schools.

Lie Number One, The Constitution Teaches Separation of Church and State, Part b.

The Founders of the Constitution clearly intended for the Bible to be taught in schools.

How can we know what the U.S. Constitution intended concerning the relationship of the church with the state? They are many, who would totally separate religion, or more truthfully, morality from government, who cherry pick statements from our founders which seem to indicate their desire to separate Christianity from all government functions. Yes, I said, ‘Christianity,’ not religion, for that is their goal–to totally delete any reference of the morality of Christianity from the public scene. Their eventual goal is to wipe out Christianity from families and individuals, and to relegate practicing Christians to being fanatical and a danger to society. Any who do not believe this, are naive to the ways of those who hate morality.

Historical writings reveal the intent of Congress to use the Bible for inspiration in their dealings. In the case quoted below, to enable our first president, George Washington, to set aside a day of thanksgiving with prayer and thanks to God for his intervention and favor to the new republic.
Repeatedly in early congressional records, the Bible was used as the premise for discussions and law making as illustrated from this excerpt from the Congressional Record of September 25, 1789 asking President Washington to declare the first National Thanksgiving holiday. "Mr. [Elias] Boudinot (who was the President of Congress during the American Revolution) said he could not think of letting the congressional session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution: Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the Un States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God . . . Mr. [Roger] Sherman (a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) justified the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution . . . The question was put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative. Source: Straight Talk
We have gotten to the place where if this happened today, many voices would be raised which would criticize any congressional representative or senator making such a recommendation. We have obviously traveled a long way from our beginning.

A former speaker of the US House of Representatives, Robert Winthrop, recognized that people will be guided by a benevolent or malevolent power or authority. He strongly said if we would be free, we would submit to the teachings of the Bible:
Quoting Robert Winthrop (Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives):
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. (Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his “Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.”) Source.
Founders intended for the Holy Bible to be used in schools for teaching morality.
1670 Indian Christian Church founded on Martha's Vineyard to educate Indians.

1690 Connecticut Law passed that children be taught to read so they can read Holy Scriptures.

1690 First New England Primer is published. The Alphabet is taught using Bible verses for each letter, and has questions on Bible moral teachings. The Primer contains children's prayers, the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Shorter Catechism and questions on the Bible by Mr. Cotton. The New England Primer will be in wide use in American schools of all types public, private, home or parochial, for the next 200 years.

1699 Yale was founded by ten ministers in order to further the reformed Protestant religion. Students were required to read Scriptures morning and evening at times of prayer.

1717 Rev. Cotton Mather starts classes for Negroes and Indians to teach the 3 "R's" plus religion.

1769 Dartmouth-College is established for the education and instruction of youths in reading, writing and all parts of learning which shall appear necessary and expedient for civilizing and Christianizing the children.

1781 Congress approves the purchase of Bibles to be used in schools.

1787 Congress passes the Northwest Ordinance which is outlines requirements for governments of new territories so they can qualify for statehood. Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance directs the people of the territories to establish schools "to teach religion, morality, and knowledge.” Nearly every state admitted to the Union after this has written in their State Constitution wording that the schools are to teach morality and religion and they all use the Bible as the bases for their teachings.

1802 Thomas Jefferson acting as President for Washington D.C. schools requires the Bible and the Watts Hymnal to be used in classrooms.

1808 Washington's Farewell Address is published as a separate text book. Washington's Address is looked upon as one of the most important political documents in American history. In the speech Washington emphases that for America to succeed it must have a moral society which can only come from roots in the Christian faith. This text book is used until 1960's.

1844 Girard proposes to teach morals without the Bible. The Supreme Court rules that American schools are to teach Christianity using the Bible. The case is argued and won by Daniel Webster. (Videl v. Girard) Dated comments source: An Outline History of Religion in American Schools. Click here for Source.

The above source contains more, but I have posted some that are very clear that the founders fully intended that the Bible, rather than religion, be taught in the public school system.
It is so clear, it would make one wonder why the modern generation is trying to convince us that the constitution prohibits the teaching of religion. It is clear, the modern post-Christian generation does not want the teachings of Jesus taught in our public schools. In subsequent articles, we will discuss this.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Lie number 1, Part a, separation of Church and State is incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.

Part 1
Lie number 1, Part a, What the First Amendment says and does not say.

Believers that the constitution provides for a separation of church and state claim the first amendment supports this theory. Does it? The first amendment, a part of the ten amendment Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution states, 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.

What does this amendment really say? First, Congress can not mandate a state religion or church, such as in England, which recognized the Church of England, i.e., The Anglican Church, as official church of the realm. The original passengers of the Mayflower that landed on the shores of Virginia in 1620, came so that they could worship as they pleased, and not be subject to a state church, nor be required to support it in taxes, only to find that the law of the land from 1624 mandated that white Virginians worship in the Anglican church of England) and support its upkeep with their taxes. Source.

The following paragraphs were taken from a web site owned by the Anti-Defamation League under an article titled: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer (Click here for article).

Public school teachers rightly function as important authority figures in the lives of their students. But, under the Constitution, their authority may not extend to matters of religious belief. According to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment requires that public school students never be given the impression that their school officially sanctions religion in general or prefers a specific faith in particular. Further, students must never feel coerced by peer or public pressure into adhering to the dictates of any religion.

Contrary to the claims of opponents of church-state separation, public school students enjoy very broad rights to act in accordance with their religious values and to practice their religious beliefs while at school. From words of grace whispered quietly before a meal in a cafeteria to prayer groups gathering before school at the flagpole, every day all over the country, students engage in constitutionally protected religious expression on public school grounds. Source.

With respect to the first paragraph, the U.S. Constitution nowhere prohibits teachers or other school officials authority over matters of religious beliefs. Authority includes the power to guarantee students not to be forced by other students or by the authority itself. Matters of religious belief is a broad topic. The second paragraph states, public school students enjoy very broad rights to act in accordance with their religious values and to practice their religious beliefs while at school. Within the past few years, this is no longer true. Students are limited in their free speech concerning their feeling and beliefs in racial, religious, political, and social matters, by what is now termed, as “political correctness.” Students have been expelled for wearing clothing which school officials ‘claim’ offend other students, while allowing Hispanic and other minority students those privileges. Some students at some schools have been stripped or their individual rights to worship contrary to the phrase or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. As previously stated, this has been accomplished under the false authority of “political correctness.

Part b, to follow shortly.

Thursday, December 8, 2011


In the next few weeks, I intend to present a series of posts on lies our public schools teach our children. Why do I call them lies, rather than mistakes, misrepresentations, or maybe just opinions? Because they have been planted into our public and private schools with the knowledge knowing they were just that, lies, and they were planted for the very purpose of changing the beliefs of our citizens through molding the mindsets of our children.

Some lies have been taught for several generations, more so in our present one. These lies affect our newest citizens as they have and are still influencing most of our citizens. These lies also cause rifts between generations in our families, older family members tending to be conservative, which our young ones become more liberal.

Just as we were taught lies about George Washington, we were also taught lies about other U.S. presidents. We were taught falsehoods about the Bible, about Christianity, about political parties, and about science.

A common misconception, developed by a lies taught in our schools, is that the U.S. Constitution lays down the political doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. Is this true or false?

This will be the first lie I will post on this web site. Keep reading.

Monday, November 21, 2011

God's Providence Celebrated in Thanksgiving

by Rick

Thanksgiving 20011 is only three days away. Thanksgiving has a lot of meaning many do not know or understand. It leads us to be thankful for the divine design in the beginning development of our nation.

The Mayflower was at anchor in what would be Provincetown, Massachusetts, on the 11th of November, 1620. The factions aboard the ship decided to minimize mutiny and any other foreseeable trouble that might occur. They made a decision to develop a ‘civil body politic,’ which they named the Mayflower Compact. Here is a modernized version of the Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign, Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc.

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

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

I hope everyone has a meaningful Thanksgiving.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Five sentences worth posting and passing on

All Liberals should read and sear these principles into their memories!

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I......

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Watch "180" Now

Who was Adolph Hitler? Do you know? Many of our citizens don't know who he was. This is a testimony to the corruption of our educational system. This video is 33 minutes long. It has even turned abortionists minds against abortion. Please take the time to watch it.

180 Movie is a shocking award winning documentary that is changing lives and hearts on the issue of abortion. The video is produced by Living Waters, and features Ray Comfort​​ of the popular The Way of the Master ministry. The 180 Movie is now available online for Free viewing. Check it out! ###WARNING! Graphic Content###

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Are Democrats Planning on Stealing the Election of 2012?

At least 14 states have ongoing suits against organizations involved in voter fraud. Not surprisingly, voter fraud is overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic candidates for offices from the local to the national level. Related Article.
Stealing the Election of 2012
by Roger Hedgecock

Americans take the integrity of our elections for granted. Every citizen has an equal right to vote, and every vote cast is counted. Rubbish.
The voter rolls of this country are stuffed with illegal aliens, felons and dead people, who not only vote, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Citizens in uniform serving overseas, who might vote Republican, are routinely denied the right to vote when ballots are mailed "too late" to be returned in time to count. When a Republican wins a close race, uncounted ballots are "found" in the backseat of a Democrat poll worker's car.

American elections are getting more corrupt every election year.

I heard Debbie Wasserperson-Schultz still whining the other day about the 2000 presidential election in Florida. You know, the one President Gore won, but Bush stole—even though every time the New York Times and other Democrat lapdog media counted and recounted those Florida ballots, Bush still won. Source from Human Events.
I read many of those reports from the Liberal media, and have read their support of Florida recount figures. With the corruption in the present administration and in the Democrat Party, There is no doubt in my mind that the voter fraud in the 2012 election will surpass the fraud of 2008. I believe the aftermath of the election of 2012 will involve multiple lawsuits of states against leftist organizations involved in the election fraud. Democrats lie and will not hesitate to pull any devious trick to remain in power, as it remains in the recounting of ballots in Florida in 2008. They know better. They knowingly tried to steal the election through Florida. But the Supreme Court made the correct decision in leaving the decision involving Florida voting procedure up to Florida officials.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Teacher Ordered to Remove ‘Religious’ Banners After Nearly 30 Years

Written on September 16, 2011 by The Godfather

After an initial court victory, a high school math teacher lost his battle to keep his “God” banners displayed in his classroom. A federal appeals court ruled on September 13, 2011 that Bradley Johnson’s First Amendment rights were not violated when he was asked by the school district to take down a series of religious banners.

Mr. Johnson had banners hanging in his classroom at Westview High School in San Diego, Calif., for more than 30 years with phrases like “In God We Trust,” “All Men Are Created Equal,” and “They Are Endowed by Their Creator.” Another sign contained the words “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” and “God Shed His Grace On Thee.” Each of these postings is part of America’s religious history, in particular, America’s Christian history. Read More in Godfather Politics.
This is far more serious than a mere violation of free speech of first amendment rights, it is a violation of the freedom of religion, i.e., the restriction of personal beliefs allowed to be displayed.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Democrat Mayor of Shreveport Has Police Harass Gun Owners on the Streets

Doug Book,
Posted on September 12, 2011 by Guest Writer

When Robert Baillio was pulled over by a member of the Shreveport police department,he learned that Shreveport’s Democratic mayor,Cedric Glover,believes firearms belong only in the hands of the police.

The mayor is a member of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” In fact,Glover is such a believer in disarming his electorate that his officers are trained to identify likely gun owners for the purpose of harassing them into giving up the practice of driving while armed.

The officer who detained Baillio – ostensibly for the improper use of a turn signal – later admitted it was actually the display of bumper stickers on the young man’s truck that prompted the stop.

One sticker read,“NRA Member.” Another proclaimed:“Armed we are Citizens,Unarmed we are Subjects.” Read article here

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read: Unfortunately, most voters don't know this.

I received the following by email, and thought they were good enough to share;

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Obama's Kenyan Birth; a Truth from the Past

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative. Read Article in Sunday Standard.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

State’s change to concealed-carry law doesn’t have effect many predicted

When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.
So you see, the whines of the left and the gun-control nuts are false. Most who obtain concealed weapon licenses purport themselves responsibly. Read article.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Obama 'defiance' of Constitution earns impeachment call

'What use are elections if the executive branch rules by decree?'
Posted: June 30, 2011
12:40 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

An organization that represents the 75 percent of American citizens who want more control over illegal immigration is calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama over his involvement in the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords and his efforts to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.

"President Obama is no longer the legitimate president of the United States," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, in calling for the action today.

"By arming drug and human smugglers with assault weapons that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by both the Congress and the American public more than eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason against the United States and must be removed from office by Congress," he said. Read article from WND.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Ex-CIA General Paul Vallely states Obama birth certificate a forgery

Is President Obama Eligible to be President of the United States? Most of congress does not think so but is afraid to act.

Some members of the armed forces have refused to obey the president's orders under the assumption he is not the legitimate commander-in-chief of the armed forces as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States as the constitution requires. Lt Terry Lakin is one example who refused to go to Afghanistan. He was court-martialed and sentenced to serve a six month term at the Leavenworth, Kansas disciplinary barracks.
Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate
Gen. Paul Vallely: Congress afraid to probe 'possible felony' over fears of 'black backlash'

Posted: June 15, 2011
3:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed. Read More.
And the fear of a black backlash is very likely to occur. However, the longer that this issue is protracted, the worse the constitutional crisis will be when sometime down the road it will be acted upon. Then all actions of the Obama administration will be declared null and void. This will certainly result in a backlash among many left-wing groups, and a counter action by those supporting the constitution.

[Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Jim Crow and Racism Destroy Liberal Minds

When Liberals can not honestly win an argument, they resort to throwing out 'red herrings' or 'straw men' arguments, to divert attention from the real issue:
By now, every Conservative should know how the argument of a Liberal degrades. It goes something like this:

A Conservative makes some valid political point seeking a Liberal’s counterpoint. Instead of providing a well-thought out intelligent answer, the first response is usually some irrelevant or made-up statistic. Sometimes it can even be a made-up quotation. After the Conservative provides a sound defense of his position, the Liberal continues to answer unintelligibly. Repeat this process three times (Sometimes it only takes making the original point). Finally, out of desperation, and knowing his position is full of holes, the Liberal resorts to calling you a racist or if you are proposing some sort of policy, the term ‘racist’ won’t do, so your policy is now a part of the old Jim Crow laws.

Americans have been increasingly interested in implementing a law that requires all voters to provide an ID card before placing their vote. Alabama just passed a law that does just that and provides the ID for free. The logic is simple: If you provide an ID card then that ID will be matched up with your name when you come to vote. You can’t vote as someone else or vote multiple times. Voter fraud is thereby reduced. Sure, there will some people who violate the law and illegally create multiple voter IDs, but at least there will be a step that most people won’t take.

While a voter ID makes sense to most normal people (apparently 75% of Americans agree with a voter ID), but according to the DNC chair Deb Wasserman Schultz, those that want to implement a voter ID want to “drag us all the way back to the Jim Crow” era. She provides no logical explanation except that she did finally backtrack on her words to a more “reasonable” argument:

[S]he still claims that requirements to show ID at the polls – which are designed to cut down on election fraud – are racially discriminatory. Godfather Politics.
So, if you are against voter ID laws, you are a racist, just as if you are against anything Obama does, or the present Democratic administration does, you are a racist.

But then, maybe this is a good thing. Calling everyone a racist who does not agree with the administration a racist, is like yelling 'wolf' all the time. It will soon be meaningless.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Judge Who Voided Collective Bargaining Law Has Tie To Labor Dispute

What else is new? Chicanery, dishonesty, lying, patronage, and related corruption is rampant throughout the left.

June 7, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Wisconsin judge who voided collective bargaining law has family tie to labor disputeA legal expert from The Heritage Foundation has questioned the validity of the recent decision to void Wisconsin’s law that limits collective bargaining rights for public workers.

Judge Maryann Sumi, who rendered the May 26 decision, should have withdrawn from the case. Sumi’s son was an organizer for one of the big unions that protested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s legislation. Read original article here.
The Wisconsin law is not unconstitutional, regardless of what pro-union activist Judge Sumi thinks. The law does not come into conflict with any article or amendment of the constitution. It only comes in conflict with what the pro-socialist union bosses want, which is to force state workers to belong to the union regardless of personal preference.

Collective bargaining is one thing when done between a private company or corporation and the union, when representatives of both are present. But, it is another thing when state officials, put into office by union donations, sit down with the same unions to negotiate salaries, benefits, and other concerns, without the taxpayers present to argue their case. The taxpayers, providing the money for salaries and benefits, are not represented, and that is where the difference lies. As a member of a union family growing up, this turns me off from unions and their bullying activities, like selfish babies who cry and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want through law and the ballot box.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

A Win for Arizona, and the Rule of Law

May 27, 2011 4:00 A.M.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Arizona’s 2007 law requiring all employers in the state to use the federal E-Verify system for screening out illegal aliens and revoking the business licenses of firms that knowingly hire them.

The court split 5–3 along party lines: Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor (Kagan recused herself) ignored the plain meaning of the federal law empowering states to use their licensing power to address the employment of illegal workers. Chief Justice Roberts, on the other hand, found “no basis in law, fact, or logic” for the argument that Arizona should be stopped from doing so in the name of federal “preemption” of state activity.

It’s an important win for many reasons, not least of them the fact that Arizona’s E-Verify mandate actually works. While the illegal-alien population nationwide fell 7 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal aliens in Arizona fell by nearly 18 percent, and many analysts credit the E-Verify mandate with that success. Post Continues on

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Friday, April 29, 2011

Posted without comment. Speaks for itself.

In a blog post dated Monday, April 24, Castillo recounts what happened to her at DFW airport last week after opting out of going through one of the TSA’s new x-ray scanners.

Susie's Experience with the TSA Pat Down from on Vimeo.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The Left's Loud and Vulgar Protest Against Tea Party

I do not like to post this kind of stuff. But the grossly disrespectful actions of the left against the Tea Party should be shown. Warning. You may not want to watch this. Foul language is used throughout the video picturing "peaceful leftist demonstrators."


Friday, April 15, 2011

The Second Amendment is Anathema to the NWO Crowd

The U.S. Constitution grants sovereignty to the states and to the citizens of the states. The "No-borders" progressives, liberals, marxists, are pushing for a New World Order in which government will enforce peace. This might seem like a good idea to the mind-set of the members of this leftist group of 'elites' who know more than the rest of us what brings peace. They do not understand the principle that true freedom is what brings peace.

These One Worlders realize that the possession of personal firearms are counter to their evil plans as the following article shows:
Gun-Grabbers Undermine U.S. Sovereignty
by John M. Snyder
(Council for America)
American gun owners face a double-whammy: A political establishment that seeks to undermine both 2nd Amendment rights and United States national sovereignty.

For decades, gun-grabbers in politics, academe and media have promoted various gun-control schemes to weaken if not ultimately eliminate the individual 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms.

They’ve proposed federal firearms registration, gun-owner licensing, handgun-purchase waiting periods, one-gun-a-month handgun-purchase limitations, bans on inexpensive handguns, bans on semiautomatic firearms, bans on .50-caliber firearms, bans on personal defensive firearms use, limitations on gun shows, and almost any other restrictive approach they can dream up. Read rest of article.
It was the intention of our founding fathers that each state have its own state regulated militia with every healthy individual owning and bearing his own firearms. The fathers were also against a powerful standing army, a principle we have violated in forming a powerful military. They wisely placed it under a civilian commander-in-chief. However, for this to work, the commander-in-chief must be a pro-American patriot and faithful to the Constitution.

Today, we have neither. And as such, we must, even to the shedding of blood, protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 8

Chapter 8 The Minutemen

When looking for information on the role of the minutemen in American colonial history, I came across the following piece on the minutemen. I was surprised to find out that the minutemen had a larger role than they fulfilled in the War for Independence. To compare them with our modern warriors, we could call them the colonial special ops units.

The article below, is from the website of, created and hosted by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, PA. The site is a treasure trove of early American history. Here is a link to their website:

The article, Minutemen, written by Andrew Ronemus, is found at this web address: ushistory–minutemen.

The Minutemen playing a crucial role not only in the Revolutionary War, but in earlier conflicts.

Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Although today Minutemen are thought of as connected to the Revolutionary War in America, their existence was conceived in Massachusetts during the mid-seventeenth century. As early as 1645, men were selected from the militia ranks to be dressed with matchlocks or pikes and accoutrements within half an hour of being warned. In 1689 another type of Minuteman company came into existence. Called Snowshoemen, each was to "provide himself with a good pair of snowshoes, one pair of moggisons, and one hatchet" and to be ready to march on a moment's warning. Minutemen also played a role in the French and Indian War in the 1750's. A journal entry from Samuel Thompson, a Massachusetts militia officer, states, "...but when our men were gone, they sent eleven more at one minute's warning, with 3 days provision..." By the time of the Revolution, Minutemen had been a well-trained force for six generations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Every town had maintained its 'training band'. The adversity that this region faced — Native-American uprisings, war with France, and potential for local insurrections, social unrest, and rioting — provided ample reason to adhere to a sound militia organization. In his recent book, perhaps David Hackett Fischer puts it best, "The muster of the Minutemen in 1775 was the product of many years of institutional was also the result of careful planning and collective effort." (p. 151). By the time of the Revolution, Massachusetts had been training, drilling, and improving their militia for well over a hundred years.

Unfortunately, one thing the Minutemen lacked was central leadership. This disadvantage would lead to their dissolution. In February of 1775 Concord was one of the first towns to comply with the order to create Minutemen companies out of the militia. Of approximately 400 militia from Concord's muster rolls, one hundred would also serve as Minutemen. When a battle took place Minutemen companies from several towns combined their units. An officer from the 43rd Regiment of Foot was sent to the North Bridge in Concord with a number of light infantry. Minutemen from Concord, Acton, Littleton, and other towns combined forces. After a few volleys were fired, the British light infantry retreated back to the Concord Common area. Lacking central command, with each company of Minutemen loyal to their own town, they did not pursue the redcoats. In the running battle that ensued fifteen miles back to Boston the Massachusetts militia would see their last action as Minutemen in history. The militia would go on to form an army, surrounding Boston and inflicting heavy casualties on the British army at Bunker and Breed's Hill.

Thus, although lacking central command, the Minutemen were still better organized and battle-tested than any other part-time military. They were a vital and necessary force, playing a crucial role in not only the Revolutionary War, but in earlier conflicts. Without these "ready in a minute" men, our history may have been written in a very different way.

– Andrew Ronemus
This material is copyright by, and used with permission of, the Independence Hall Association, on the web at
Picture courtesy of
Story courtesy of

Thursday, March 24, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 7

Chapter 7 Obligations and Duties of Militia Members.

What exactly is a militia?
It may depend upon whose definition you use. I like the definition given by one of the founders:
"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 shall 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, 1788.

The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty. Militia
Historical Militias
The character of militias in both the United Kingdom and the United States come to us from the days of the Anglo Saxons.
For fifteen centuries it has been a fundamental principle of Anglo-Saxon government--a fact that seems to be quite generally ignored--that every citizen capable of bearing arms owes, in return for his liberty and protection, the duty of personal service to protect and defend his government in time of need. At its base it is an obligatory and not a volunteer system, though, chiefly perhaps because the ordinary need of the State requires the service of far less than the number available, in England until recently, and here as well, the service seems to have been regarded not as a bounden duty but as necessarily voluntary, as, of course, it is under the policy legislatively established. The Colonists brought with them here the militia system indigenous to the land of their origin. [Italics mine] Legal and Historical Aspects of The Militia:
No other American institution bears a closer resemblance to its ancient English ancestor than our militia. An examination of historic state documents of the colonies shows that all the essentials of the English system were established here. Just as the Second Amendment of our Constitution was borrowed from the Bill of Rights of 1688, so did our colonial legislatures adopt the militia laws of the Motherland. [Italics mine] Ibid.
So we can readily see that the use of militias have solid historical basis. The founding fathers were well versed in history, and within the principles they derived from having a Judeo-Christian background, thy wisely decided to create a constitutional mandate for our several states to form militias.

Duties of militias–Riot Control
Militias are attractive forces of order for several reasons. They have often deployed with battlefield weapons—from bayonets to cannon—that can overawe or, if necessary, decimate a crowd armed only with bricks, stones, and pistols. They also, at times, have brought an impressive discipline to riots, acting with a restraint and neutrality beyond the ability of a sheriff’s posse or a squad of special police hastily recruited from among civilians. Unlike professional police forces, they are not paid full-time, but lie mostly dormant until the rare emergencies when they are needed. And unlike regular soldiers, they are—in theory—composed of the local citizenry, and therefore unlikely to oppress the rights of the people. Zachary M Schrag’s notes on militias.
Community Service

You can search the internet for other duties performed by the militias of the colonies and some states today. They were called up to put down riots, to aid volunteer firefighters as some were, aid in cleaning up after natural disasters, and serve the community in other ways. Some were the social centers of their communities, providing help and assistance to citizens and service organizations.


Militias provide safety and a sense of well-being to the communities in which they serve. The colonies feared a standing army, preferring instead local militias. Today, we have a powerful standing army which is more than a match for any state militia. The second amendment is still the best defense against a potential tyrannical government, who would do away with the amendment. It is hoped, that if the federal government ever sent members of the armed forces against the states or individual citizen, that they would refuse to carry out the orders.

If that ever happened, a second war between the states would be fought, and the death toll would be unimaginable.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 6

Chapter 6: Founders Intended the States to form Militias

Much evidence exists in the histories of the original colonies, and in the writings of the founders of the U.S. Constitution, that they fully intended that the sovereign states of the United States form their own militias, so much, that they made provision in the Constitution in support of militias.
Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power To . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. . . .”
As we can see by the wording in the last half of the above paragraph in section 8 of Article 1, that this is referring to state militias, organized, and officers appointed by the said states.
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.” Not only must the states, according to the constitution, have their own militias, but also have the obligation of creating a disciplinary structure to maintain the efficient organization of the militia, and knowing how to contact in emergency every able-bodied man (and women) for immediate service.
What is a militia? Who constitutes the militia? “The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state (read jural society), enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.", "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces. Source.

How did the founding fathers describe the militia? Source.
"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.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.) “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185). "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?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “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.” "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "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, emphasis added. "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention).

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be arm and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Source.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil inte When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress). Source.
In conclusion, we can easily see that it was the intention of our founders that each state develop a militia of every able-bodied citizen, owning his own firearm, and being closely regulated by the state of his residence. I submit, that many of the gun-grabbers know this, and they do not care, as their goal is for government to maintain control over society, and to provide a state sponsored military, i.e., National Guard–never the constitutionally designated militia–and county and city sherif and police forces.
The police very seldom ever save lives except in the case of hostage taking, but show up after a crime to write it up and investigate it. But, thousands each year defend and protect themselves through use of their own firearms. It is imperative that we do all we can in our power to protect our Second Amendment.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Illinois State Police refuse to release list of firearm permit holders

The Illinois State Police are setting the example how authorities should uphold the Second Amendment when asked by government officials to violate the civil rights of gun permit holders.

Showdown in Illinois Over Identifying Gun Owners

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Conservative Byte

In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information “must” be made public. Read full article in Conservative Byte dot com here.
This action on the part of the Illinois Attorney General has put her in the middle of a fire storm and a massive protest is forming. It is hoped this massive protest will send a message to all government gun-grabbers.
Massive Rally at Illinois Capitol Will Protest Release of Gun Owner Names and Personal Information

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., March 7, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

Anger over Attorney General Lisa Madigan's recent decision to make public the names and other personal information belonging to law-abiding gun owners is expected to swell the ranks of protesters at a gun rights rally scheduled for Thursday, March 10th at the Illinois Capitol.

The initial intent of the 2011 edition of Illinois Gun Owners' Lobby Day was to encourage the General Assembly to pass legislation allowing qualified citizens to carry defensive firearms. Illinois is one of only two states that prohibit citizens from protecting themselves and their families by carrying defensive firearms. The other state, Wisconsin, is expected to pass concealed carry legislation later this year. Read rest of story here: PR Newswire.
The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For more than a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. Many other states have State chapter of NRA upholding the rights of US citizens preserved by the Second Amendment.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

The True Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 5

Chapter 5 What Does it Mean, To “Turn the Other Cheek?”

The following verse in the Holy Bible, is largely misunderstood by pacifist Christians, and they use the scripture to teach others not to fight back nor to defend themselves.
Matthew 5:39, “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” [New International Version, ©2010]. Many will be more familiar with the wording of the King James Version: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” [Matthew 5:39, King James Version].
To understand this verse, we must approach it based on an understanding of the context in which this verse is included, and of the customs of the culture and era. To begin with, this was even misunderstood in Jesus’ day as he states in the Sermon on the Mount. To understand, we begin with verse 38 of the chapter:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” [Matthew 5:38-39 NIV].

Jesus is telling them what they had heard was in error concerning both ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek.’ This is also recorded in the Book of Luke:
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you” [Luke 6:27-31 NIV].
These verses are interpreted correctly in Wikipedia:
A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[1] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[2] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[3] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13: Wikipedia Article.
Rick McFarland, of Grace Church, on the Real Answers web site, gives an easily understood answer to these verses:
It is interesting to note that Matthew 5:39 specifically states that if someone slaps you on the right cheek, you are to turn the other cheek also. As today, most people then were right-handed. If a right-handed person were to slap you, you would be hit on the left cheek. This verse is speaking of getting hit with a back hand across the right cheek rather than getting hit across the left cheek with full force.

Although getting backhanded was not as painful because it came with much less force than getting hit with the dominate hand, getting slapped backhanded was one of the biggest insults in Hebrew culture. Therefore, Jesus was really saying when someone insults us, we should not attempt to retaliate or get even, rather we should turn the other cheek. Real Answers.
Turning the other cheek tells us not to take vengeance, as we should turn aside insults and minor matters and to not start a personal war over trivia. We should pick our battles carefully and be willing to forgive.

This does not mean we are not to defend our lives, the lives of our families, or to allow others to run over us. Again, an answer from ‘Real Answers:’
in the Old Testament,
if an individual refused to fight for his country, he would be held guilty. In Numbers 32:23, Joshua warned those who would not fight for their country that their sin would find them out. The expressed meaning of this verse is that it is dishonorable and a sin not to fight in defense of one’s country when called upon to do so. According to the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1Timothy 5:8, if you do not provide for your own household you are worse than an infidel (or unbeliever) and have denied the faith. When read in context, this verse speaks of taking care of your family financially. Clearly, this verse extends to include the physical care and protection of your family. It would do no good to be diligent in paying the bills yet refuse to offer defense against someone who would enter your home with the intent to kill your family. Therefore, these verses in Matthew are not teaching against self defense in life and death matters. Ibid.
Coming, What the founders of the constitution intended in the Second Commandment

Sunday, February 20, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 4

Self-Defense in the Old Testament
What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control, Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt.

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one's life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.

In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.
. . . . .
The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.

The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.

For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6). What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control, Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt. Read entire article here.
This is self-defense and protection of life and property in the old testament. However, many Christians would do away with all of the Old Testament, nullifying God’s law. Only the Old Covenant law is replaced by the New Covenant, not the civil laws God has placed in his Word for the protection of His people and the society in which we have to live. But, the same principles are repeated in the New Testament as well.
The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God's Word when he wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life. Ibid.
What about “Turning the other cheek?” This will be posted soon.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 3

How Does God Look at Gun Control?

In searching for material for this chapter, I found the following by Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners Foundation. This is a revised version I posted in 2009. It covers the subject and I present part of it here from the web site of Gun Owners of America:
What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President, Gun Owners Foundation

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

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

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

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

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons. Read Article by Larry Pratt.
Many who support gun control and would deny the right of our citizens the right to own and bear weapons according to the second amendment, like to quote the Bible to support their position. Again, we quote Larry Pratt:
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.

Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.

Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments. Ibid.
Read the entire article, as it answers many questions about the Bible and the Second Amendment. We will discuss the article further in the next post on this subject.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Continued

The founders of the U.S. Constitution, most of them Christians, established our laws on Judeo-Christian laws, principles, and concepts. The Second Amendment was taken from the patterns set fourth by Ancient Israel in fighting their wars with family militias, each man having his own weapon.
Chapter 2. Israel left Egypt Armed for War

We pick up the story of Israel, from the Bible, leaving Egypt by families and armed.

Exodus 13, verses 17 through 18, NIV: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, 'If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.' So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle.

This is an interesting sentence: The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle. Being ready for battle would suggest they had some kind of arms. Where did they get them? They were slaves in Egypt leaving the land.

Some Historians link the Hebrews to various ancient people. One such people were the Habirus, which name is similar to the word, ‘Hebrew, and which some historians think were the Hebrews, in addition to other peoples they also called Habiru.’ They included nomads, marauders, possible mercenaries. The Bible records the Hebrews, i.e., Jews in scripture, having been in Egypt for four hundred thirty years. It is not only possible, but probable that the Israelites served in the Egyptian army, or at least as a supplemental fighting force. They also may have served Egypt as mercenaries. This would have given them access to weapons.

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt. 42 Because the LORD kept vigil that night to bring them out of Egypt, on this night all the Israelites are to keep vigil to honor the LORD for the generations to come. [Exodus 12:40-42 NIV].

He [Pharaoh] said to his people, "Look, the people of Israel now outnumber us and are stronger than we are [Exodus 1:9 New Living Translation].

When Israel began to outnumber the Egyptians, why did they began to fear them? When they left Egypt they were ready for battle. Scripture gives a possible reason for that. When Pharaoh feared Israel, he turned them into a working force, and not wanting to lose their workers, he refused to let them go. Then God sent ten plagues on Egypt which destroyed crops, animals, and much of the country’s infrastructure, Pharaoh, upon urging of the people, decided to let them go.

Exodus 12:32-37, During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the LORD as you have requested. Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me.”

The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and leave the country. “For otherwise,” they said, “we will all die!” So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing. The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians. The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds. With the dough the Israelites had brought from Egypt, they baked loaves of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.

The Israelites took silver, gold, and no doubt household utensils, clothing, and probably weapons given to them or their own.

Ancient Israel had weapons and they were instructed to keep and use them. We saw from Exodus 13:18, they went out of Egypt, ready for battle. More later.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

It can't happen here--or can't it?

This was posted on Soda Head Discussion Group:

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside..

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask."Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to die."The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences... Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars..

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. You had better wake up, because your president is going to do this very same thing over here if he can get it done... And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

We the People of the United States of America

This is without a doubt the best video that has come out and apparently 6 Million others think so too because there have been 6 million hits in 4 days. Please watch it again and again and send it on to others. I believe the pendulum has started to swing so let's keep it going. This is very well done.

We the People

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Senator Tom Coburn's Speech including Earmarks in the Debt Ceiling Bill

This takes a couple of minutes. It's from Dr. Tom Coburn's speech in the Senate and it should raise your blood pressure... Dr. Coburn is a senator from Oklahoma.
"We are going in exactly the wrong direction. We ought to be standing on the principles that made this country great. There ought to be a review of every program in the Federal Government that is not effective, that is not efficient, that is wasteful or fraudulent, and we ought to get rid of it right now. We ought to say, you're gone, to be able to pay for a real stimulus plan that might, in fact, have some impact.

I would be remiss if I didn't remind everybody that next week we are going to hear from the Obama administration wanting another $500 billion. Outside of this, they are going to want another $500 billion to handle the banking system. Still not fixing the real disease-the pneumonia-we are going to treat the fever or treat the cough, but we are not going to treat the real disease.

Until we treat the real disease, this is pure waste. It is worse than pure waste. It is morally reprehensible, because it steals the future of the next two generations.

I am going to wind up here and finish, but I wanted to spend some time to make sure the American people know what is in this bill. I think once they know what is in this bill, they would reject it out of hand.

Let me read for my colleagues some of the things that are in this bill...

The biggest earmark in history is in this bill. There is $2 billion in this bill to build a coal plant with zero emissions. That would be great, maybe, if we had the technology, but the greatest brains in the world sitting at MIT say we don't have the technology yet to do that. Why would we build a $2 billion power plant we don't have the technology for that we know will come back and ask for another $2 billion and another $2 billion and another $2 billion when we could build a demonstration project that might cost $150 million or $200 million? There is nothing wrong with having coal-fired plants that don't produce pollution; I am not against that. Even the Washington Post said the technology isn't there. It is a boondoggle. Why would we do that?

We eliminated tonight a $246 million payback for the large movie studios in Hollywood .

We are going to spend 88 Million to study whether we ought to buy a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard. You know what. The Coast Guard needs a new ice breaker. Why do we need to spend $88 million? They have two ice breakers now that they could retrofit and fix and come up with equivalent to what they needed to and not spend the $1 billion they are going to come back and ask for, for another ice breaker, so why would we spend $88 million doing that?

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we can't sell them, we can't raze them, we can't do anything, but we are going to spend money on a new building here in Washington ..

We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now? These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use what they have. They wouldn't go out and spend $248 million on furniture.

How about buying $600 million worth of hybrid vehicles? Do you know what I would say? Right now times are tough; I would rather Americans have new cars than Federal employees have new cars. What is wrong with the cars we have? Dumping $600 million worth of used vehicles on the used vehicle market right now is one of the worst things we could do. Instead, we are going to spend $600 million buying new cars for Federal employees..

There is $400 million in here to prevent STDs .. I have a lot of experience on that. I have delivered 4,000 babies. We don't need to spend $400 million on STDs. What we need to do is properly educate about the infection rates and the effectiveness of methods of prevention. That doesn't take a penny more. You can write that on one piece of paper and teach every kid in this country, but we don't need to spend $400 million on it. It is not a priority.

How about $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs? That might even be somewhat stimulative. New sewers. That might create jobs.

How about $150 million for a Smithsonian museum? Tell me how that helps get us out of a recession. Tell me how that is a priority. Would the average American think that is a priority that we ought to be mortgaging our kids' future to spend another $150 million at the Smithsonian?

How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.

We have $75 million for smoking cessation activities, which probably is a great idea, but we just passed a bill-the SCHIP bill-that we need to get 21 million more Americans smoking to be able to pay for that bill. That doesn't make sense.

How about $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges? Since when is a community college in my State a recipient of Federal largesse? Is that our responsibility? I mean, did we talk with Dell and Hewlett-Packard and say, How do we make you all do better? Is there not a market force that could make that better?

Will we actually buy on a true competitive bid? No, because there is nothing that requires competitive bidding in anything in this bill. There is nothing that requires it. It is one of the things President Obama said he was going to mandate the Federal Government, but there is no competitive bidding in this bill at all.

We have $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. Well, that will put 10 or 15 people to work. Is that a priority for us right now?

There is $6 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings. That is a priority, versus somebody getting a job outside of Washington , a job that actually produces something, that actually increases wealth?

How about $500 million for State and local fire stations? Where do you find in the Constitution us paying for local fire stations within our realm of prerogatives? None of it is competitively bid - not a grant program.

Next is $1.2 billion for youth activities. Who does that employ? What does that mean?

How about $88 million for renovating the public health service building? You know, if we could sell half of the $1.3 trillion worth of properties we have, we could take care of every Federal building requirement and backlog we have.

Then there's $412 million for CDC buildings and property. We spent billions on a new center and headquarters for CDC. Is that a priority? Building another Government building instead of - if we are going to spend $412 million on building buildings, let's build one that will produce something, one that will give us something.

How about $850 million for that most "efficient'' Amtrak that hasn't made any money since 1976 and continues to have $2 billion or $3 billion a year in subsidies?

Here is one of my favorites: $75 million to construct a new "security training'' facility for State Department security officers, and we have four other facilities already available to train them. But it is not theirs. They want theirs. By the way, it is going to be in West Virginia ... I wonder how that got there? So we are going to build a new training facility that duplicates four others that we already have that could easily do what we need to do. But because we have a stimulus package, we are going to add in oink pork.

How about $200 million in funding for a lease-not buying, but a lease of alternative energy vehicles on military installations?

We are going to bail out the States on Medicaid. Total all of the health programs in this, and we are going to transfer $150 billion out of the private sector and we are going to move it to the Federal Government. You talk about back dooring national health care. Henry Waxman has to be smiling big today. He wants a single-payer Government-run health care system. We are going to move another $150 billion to the Federal Government from the private sector.

We are going to eliminate fees on loans from the Small Business Administration. You know what that does? That pushes productive capital to unproductive projects. It is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Then there is $160 million to the Job Corps Program-but not for 20 jobs and not to put more people in the Job Corps but to construct or repair buildings.

We are going to spend $524 million for information technology upgrades that the Appropriations Committee claims will create 388 jobs. If you do the math on that, that is $1.5 million a job. Don't you love the efficiency of Washington thinking?

We are going to create $79 billion in additional money for the States, a "slush fund,'' to bail out States and provide millions of dollars for education costs. How many of you think that will ever go away? Once the State education programs get $79 billion over 2 years, do you think that will ever go away? The cry and hue of taking our money away - even though it was a stimulus and supposed to be limited, it will never go away. So we will continue putting that forward until our kids have grand kids of their own

There is about $47 billion for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy. I am fine with spending that. But we ought to get something for it. There ought to be metrics. There are no metrics. It is pie in the sky, saying we will throw some money at it.

Let me conclude by saying we are at a seminal moment in our country. We will either start living within the confines of realism and responsibility or we will blow it and we will create the downfall of the greatest Nation that ever lived. This bill is the start of that downfall. To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of freedom in this country.

I hope the American people know what is in this bill. I am doing everything I can to make sure they know. But more important, I hope somebody is listening who will treat the pneumonia we are faced with today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn't matter how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless we fix that problem first. Failing that, we will go down in history as the Congress that undermined the future and vitality of this country. Let it not be so."


Friday, January 14, 2011

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment

Chapter 1 Ancient Israel a Pattern for American Family Structure

We can find ancient civilizations and countries that have employed the system of militias to provide local and national protection from their enemies. One such nation was the Ancient Nation of Israel, established by God as He led them out of Egypt with a mighty hand. As we have the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, which is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, we have more information on Israel and the nations involved with Israel than with many other ancient peoples.

Most of our founding fathers were Christians in spite of the historical revisionists who would have you to believe otherwise. Many were scholars; some were involved with theology; some in religious history; and some were even pastors, deacons, and elders. They built the entire superstructure of our government around the government of Ancient Israel. Our laws were built around the Ten Commandments and civil laws of Israel. We often hear the expression that our legal system was built on a Judeo-Christian foundation. The Second Amendment was no exception. It, along with the related militia, came directly from Old Testament Israel.

God began by building the society on the solid ground of the family structure. He built in respect and obedience as stable components of the society. When God led Israel from Egpypt, he did it by clans, i.e., by families headed by the father, with sons with families, being clans as well, according to most historians. Clans were guided by wisdom from the clan partiarchs, a grandfather over many clans. Families were the source and recipents of law, dispensed internally in families. Order was maintained internally. Israelite laws instructed the youth to respect the elderly. Old family members respected the more elderly among them. The use of the word, ‘tribe’ is synonymous with clans under a single related older relative.

The Family of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, whose name was changed by God to Israel, had grown large in Egypt, whose rulers became fearful of their rapidly-growing foreign guests. They advised the midwives to kill the Israelites as the were being born, which they refused to do. So the rulers of Egypt made slaves of the Israelites and put them to work in the construction trades building cities for Pharaoh.
The story is found in Exodus, chapter 1, verses 6-22:
Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them. Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.” So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly. The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?” The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own. Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live [NIV].
Centuries earlier, the arrival of the Israelites into Egypt came through one family, i.e., Jacob and his family, seventy in number (Genesis 46:27, NRSV). They came at the invitation of the Pharaoh in appreciation of what the one son of Jacob (Israel) had done earlier in preventing Egypt from succumbing to the drought which had invated the entire region. The story can be found in Wikipedia.
The Egyptians began to treat the Israelites as slaves, forcing them into hard labor. God then raised up a deliverer, a type of the future delivers, the Messiah. The deliverer’s name was Moses, and his story can be found in Wikipedia also: Read Account in Wikipedia.
Moses was raised up by God to lead the Israelites from Egypt. He did this as he led them out family by family, in this way maintaining order which has already been established internally within each clan [Exodus 12].

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment continues. . .