The Constitution Of Our Forefathers

2012-01-18T08:05:00.001-08:00

Lie number 1, Part 3, Separation of Church and State is incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.

2012-01-05T16:58:00.000-08:00

Part 3. More founders comments on the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus

Founder’s comments on the Holy Bible, taken from Revolutionary War and Beyond. Due to the many quotes attributed to our country’s founding fathers, I will only post the ones directly pointing to God, the Bible, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

George Washington Quotes:
When you speak of God, or His attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence. Honor and obey our natural parents although they be poor." - 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, 1744

Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon. I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins fohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifr the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me. Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life." - Authentic handwritten manuscript book, April 23, 1752 Read more:

Quotes from Samuel Adams:
"He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” Samuel Adams, a speech at the State House in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1, 1776.

"Revelation assures us that "Righteousness exalteth a Nation" - Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the publick Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals." - Letter to John Scollay, April 30, 1776

"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." - Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

"We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that... We appeal to the God who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination." - Manifesto of the Continental Congress, October 30, 1778. Read more:

Quotes from Ben Franklin:
"It is that particular wise and good God, who is the Author and Owner of our system, that I propose for the Object of my praise and adoration. For I conceive that He has in Himself some of those passions He has planted in us, and that, since He has given us reason whereby we are capable of observing His wisdom in the Creation, He is not above caring for us, being pleas'd wit our praise and offended when we slight Him, or neglect His Glory. I conceive for many reasons that He is a good Being, and as I should be happy to have so wise, good and powerful a Being my Friend, let me consider in what Manner I shall make myself most acceptable to Him." - Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, November 20, 1728

"Being mindful that before I address the Deity my soul ought to be calm and serene, free from passion and perturbation, or otherwise elevated with rational joy and pleasure, I wrought to use a countenance that expresses a filial respect, mixed with a kind of smiling that signifies inward joy and satisfaction and admiration." - Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, November 20, 1728

"O Creator, O Father, I believe that Thou are Good, and Thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifou art pleas'd with the pleasure of Thy children. Praised be Thy Name forever.
Read more:

Quotes Of Thomas Jefferson:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August, 1774

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. Read more:

John Adams Quotes:
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Concience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards Almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust-no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement-no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbour, but would live in peace and good will with all men-no man would blaspheme his maker or prophane his Worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopa, what a Paradise would this region be." - Diary Entry, February 22, 1756. Read more.

"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." - Letter to William Bradford, September 25, 1773
Read more.

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world” Benjamin Rush, Signer of he Declaration of Independence. Source.

Some will comment against the plain indication that the founders intended for religion, i.e., Judeo-Christian morals and principles, be taught in the public schools. It is also obvious that the founders used the Bible and Prayer in official meetings of the original federation and the new republic as well.

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

2011-12-31T07:19:00.000-08:00

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 Unhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifited 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.

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

2011-12-27T14:45:00.000-08:00

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.

LIES TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

2011-12-08T19:48:00.000-08:00

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.

God's Providence Celebrated in Thanksgiving

2011-11-21T08:15:00.000-08:00

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.

Five sentences worth posting and passing on

2011-10-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

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......

"We The People" Video

2011-10-15T06:02:00.000-07:00

Watch "180" Now

2011-10-11T10:56:00.000-07:00

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###

Are Democrats Planning on Stealing the Election of 2012?

2011-10-06T07:52:00.000-07:00

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
06/10/2011

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.

Communist Party Goals for the U.S. Coming to Pass

2011-09-30T06:03:00.000-07:00

Posted without further comment:

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

2011-09-17T07:39:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-09-13T11:45:00.000-07:00

Doug Book,FloydReports.com
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

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

2011-08-24T07:24:00.001-07:00

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.

Obama's Kenyan Birth; a Truth from the Past

2011-08-18T14:54:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-08-16T15:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama 'defiance' of Constitution earns impeachment call

2011-07-01T14:39:00.000-07:00

'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.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

"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.

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

2011-06-17T06:51:00.000-07:00

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.

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY
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.]

Jim Crow and Racism Destroy Liberal Minds

2011-06-12T06:42:00.000-07:00

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 Debhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbie 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.

Judge Who Voided Collective Bargaining Law Has Tie To Labor Dispute

2011-06-07T10:40:00.000-07:00

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

June 7, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

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.

A Win for Arizona, and the Rule of Law

2011-05-29T06:57:00.000-07:00

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
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 www.nationalreview.com

Is Obama Going to Socialize the Oil Industry?

2011-05-22T14:04:00.000-07:00

A Slip of the Togue tells us what our socialistic government is planning

2011-04-29T12:58:00.000-07:00

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 SusieCastillo.net on Vimeo.

Conservativebyte.com

The Left's Loud and Vulgar Protest Against Tea Party

2011-04-17T18:49:00.000-07:00

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."

Courtesy Conservativebyte.com

The Second Amendment is Anathema to the NWO Crowd

2011-04-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

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.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 8

2011-03-27T19:11:00.000-07:00

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 ushistory.org, 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: ushistory.org.

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

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 development...it 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 ushistory.org.
Picture courtesy of ushistory.org
Story courtesy of ushistory.org

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 7

2011-03-24T12:39:00.000-07:00

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: Guncite.com.

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.

Summation

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.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 6

2011-03-16T11:53:00.000-07:00

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 armhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifed 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 intehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrference. 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.

Illinois State Police refuse to release list of firearm permit holders

2011-03-07T07:40:00.000-08:00

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.

The True Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 5

2011-02-27T19:42:00.000-08:00

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

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 4

2011-02-20T07:29:00.000-08:00

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.
. . . . .
Conclusion
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.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 3

2011-02-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

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.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Continued

2011-02-03T19:01:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-01-27T06:12:00.000-08:00

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?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It
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.

We the People of the United States of America

2011-01-25T19:53:00.000-08:00

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

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

2011-01-20T07:18:00.000-08:00

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."

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW! THANKS!!!

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment

2011-01-14T11:08:00.000-08:00

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. . .

Representative Gabrielle Giffords Reading the Constitution

2011-01-11T16:14:00.000-08:00

Representative Giffords Reading the First Amendment

What the Founders Intended in the Second Amendment

2011-01-10T12:56:00.001-08:00

In the coming weeks, I hope to put serially, chapters in a book I am working on about the reasons the founders had for developing the Second Amendment. A lot of arguments have been put forth about the wording and what it means. The founders used exactly the words they used to convey what they desired for our republic in the amendment.

“These words have generated considerable controversy as part of the broader debate over gun control. Proponents of stricter controls generally contend that the amendment was meant to protect the collective right of states to maintain militia units. Their opponents respond that the amendment was intended to protect an individual right, noting that in the eighteenth century the militia was composed of the entire free white male population, who were expected to muster bearing their own arms.” Answers.com
Not only is the Second Amendment misunderstood and misinterpreted, the true definition of what a militia really consists of is not fully understood. It is appropriate that the Wikipedia article (Militia, United States) reads:
“The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time. The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States.” Then Wikipedia presents the definition according to current U.S. law.
US CODE

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

* The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2–Consult article for footnotes] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
* The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]
* A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
* A private militia, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia. Wikipedia

The constitution, and the amendments, are written exactly as the founders intended. They used clear language. Every word and phrase was carefully chosen to impart the meaning they intended for then and for now. Any changes made were to be made in one of two means.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority. US Constitution Online

The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[4] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[5] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[6] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[7] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the "spirit" of the Constitution.
Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are usually interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it; as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders. Wikipedia

History of militia movements in Europe and in the original U.S. Colonies tell us explicitly what a militia is and what it is not. Historical statements of many countries over the centuries clearly tell us of what made up militias. And statements of our founding fathers nail down for us exactly what they had in mind when they formed the Second Amendment. I found in my research that no mystery exists in what a militia is and the intended purpose of it in our society today.

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

2010-12-30T16:12:00.000-08:00

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

Part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two final thoughts:

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

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

Be that courageous citizen.

Selected quotes of interest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected quotes of interest from the enemies of liberty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-12-25T12:44:00.000-08:00

Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify if a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

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

Second and First Amendment Paralleled

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Freidman: Greed

2010-12-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

2010-12-10T06:41:00.000-08:00

Larry Elder

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

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

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

WE THE PEOPLE

2010-11-26T09:10:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

2010-11-24T08:47:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanksgiving: A Time to Count our Blessings

2010-11-23T07:10:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why We Celebrate Thanksgiving Part I

2010-11-12T14:37:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620. Source: Wikipedia.

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

Kansas Passes Right to Bear Arms

2010-11-05T06:59:00.000-07:00

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

Right To Bear Arms Vote Sets A National Record!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is America Owned By the Chinese?

2010-10-29T19:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

The First Amendment According to NPR & Media Matters

2010-10-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-10-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Your Senators to Oppose the UN Small Arms Treaty

2010-10-11T13:40:00.000-07:00

Click Here to sign petition

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

2010-10-08T19:45:00.000-07:00

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

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

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

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

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

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

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

In God We Trust

2010-10-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER!

2010-09-29T19:33:00.000-07:00

I received this by email and it is worth sharing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

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

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn’t think so!

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

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

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

TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

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

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

Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.

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

Hello!! Anybody Home?

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

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

2010-09-21T10:30:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -- Second Amendment, United States Constitution

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

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

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

The Basis of Our Rights:

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

Let us examine this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

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

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

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

and continues:

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

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

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

To continue in subsequent posts . . .

The Religion of the Liberal Left

2010-09-07T06:28:00.000-07:00

Rick's Commentary--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explains a lot, does it not?

2010-08-26T16:01:00.000-07:00

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

Things haven't changed much!

2010-08-25T15:14:00.000-07:00

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

Why Are Only Illegal Aliens Exempt from Showing ID?

2010-08-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-06T10:04:00.000-07:00

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

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

Immigration Laws of Mexico

2010-07-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

The Laws of Mexico on Immigration

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

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

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

2010-07-08T08:43:00.000-07:00

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

First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration of Independence

2010-07-04T06:04:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

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

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

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Independence Day!

2010-07-03T06:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-06-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Anyone surprised?

Christian Speech Rights Suspended in Dearborn, Michigan

2010-06-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine What Teachers are Showing their Students

2010-06-24T14:37:00.002-07:00

Is President Obama the Antichrist?

2010-06-23T08:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the New American

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

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

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

So You Want to Take Your Country Back 5

2010-06-21T04:13:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-06-13T05:30:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

2010-06-02T10:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Republicans also are guilty:

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

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

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

Read more at the Washington Examiner:
.

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

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

We The People. . .

2010-05-30T12:47:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-28T05:50:00.000-07:00

Is Arizona catching on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-05-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

Commentary
by Rick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-05-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

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

Local School Suspends Student for Removing MEXICAN Flag

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

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

The Related California incident:

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

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

April 2010: Storm Troopers Protect Obama from Tea-Partiers

2010-04-30T10:57:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

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

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

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

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

2010-04-23T15:11:00.000-07:00

Part 4–Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

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

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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

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

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

The Seventeenth Amendment ratification was a deadly blow to States’ Rights, and Federalism.

Article 1 of the Constitution originally stated that, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

In their wisdom, the founders of the Constitution in order to preserve the sovereignty of the several states, gave each state senator, selected by the legislatures of said states, one vote. Senators voting against the interests of their states could be recalled and replaced. The founders wanted the United States to be a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. There is a major difference.

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

Now, to bring this all to the present in the Senate. If the original provision for selecting senators were still in effect, the states could have had immediate input and influence in the health care bill, or could kill it completely. They could recall and replace senators who are pushing laws, which are not supported by the states. Now, various states are passing laws or preparing state constitutional amendments nullifying certain provisions of the recently passed Obamacare bill.

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

Is the FDA Overstepping Its Authority Again?

2010-04-20T07:11:00.000-07:00

Commentary--

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

FDA hearing to examine salt reduction

By Lorraine Heller, 27-Nov-2007

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

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

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

You Can Not Argue With a Liberal!

2010-04-10T19:16:00.000-07:00

Arguing with modern liberals is a lost cause
Commentary--

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN Tells Balanced Story of Tea Party Rallies

2010-04-09T11:49:00.000-07:00

Kudos to CNN and The San Francisco Sentinel

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

By Shannon Travis
Political Producer
CNN

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

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

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

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

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

2010-04-06T16:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

So You Want To Take Your Country Back!

2010-04-02T07:51:00.000-07:00

Part 3: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas Sends Bill to Enforce Late-Term Abortion Laws to Governor Parkinson

2010-04-01T06:09:00.000-07:00

Kansas Sends Bill to Enforce Late-Term Abortion Laws to Governor Parkinson

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 31, 2010

Topeka, KS (LifeNews.com) -- The Kansas state House approved a bill that would mandate that the Kansas health department obey the state's late-term abortion law. The House approved HB 2215 83-36, one vote shy of a veto proof majority and now the bill goes to Governor Parkinson, who may veto it.

The Senate approved the measure hours before the House on a 24-15 margin.

This is the fifth year in a row the legislature has sent a similar bill to the governor's desk attempting to stop late-term abortions and ensuring any done in the state follow current laws limiting them. Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed previous versions. Read full article here.

Kansas Firearms Freedom Act Passes House

2010-03-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

For Kansas Residents:

Kansas --(AmmoLand.com)- HB 2620 was brought for final action in the House yesterday morning and was passed with a roll call vote of 95 – 27.

This bill will now go to the Senate.

Please call your Senator and ask them to urge the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee to schedule a hearing for this bill before the session clock runs out.

To refresh your memory, this bill does the following:
The Kansas Firearms Freedom Act, House Bill 2620, crafted by The Kansas State Rifle Association was introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives by Representative Ray Merrick and several other co-sponsors.

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is principally a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise. Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state is beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. Source: Ammoland

Please contact your state senator and ask him or her to approve this important bill.
Complete listing of Kansas State Senators: Click Here.

This week has been a shameful disaster

2010-03-23T10:04:00.000-07:00

Commentary

During the past three days in the United States, I witnessed two events, which will make this week go down in history. It will go down in history as the House of Representatives passed the Obama Health Care Bill on Sunday, March 21, 2010. It will go down in history as President, Barack Obama, signed the bill into law on Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

Immediately after the signing of the bill by the president, thirteen states filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the bill violated Amendment 10, of the U.S. Constitution. The wording of the Tenth Amendment is as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The states maintain that the constitution does not allow the federal government to compel private citizens to buy anything from private employers, such as insurance companies.

To others of us, we believe the process in passing the bill was flawed. The usual procedure is for each house to pass their versions of a bill, and then refer their bills to a committee to work out the disagreements, then send it back to each house for approval. This whole process has been an unmitigated disaster! The Republicans were locked out of discussions, debates, and much of the discussions were limited to Democrats behind locked doors. If the process was not out and out unconstitutional, it was an utter disgrace!

It is incredible to me, that the president, who claims to have been a professor teaching constitutional law, that he would be a part of this process. It is obvious that he either does not know or understand the constitution, or he knows and wants to change it through legislation. His conduct would seem to confirm the claims of those who claim he is a socialist. His actions, and those of a Democratically controlled congress would certainly confirm we are heading in the direction of socialism. And be not deceived: socialism means control, and they will continue to move in other areas of our lives.

November of this year will give us a chance to remedy this dangerous trend. We need to go to the polls and throw out every Democrat and a high percentage of Republicans, and to replace them with constitutional conservatives that will promise to enact term limits, to repeal the seventeenth amendment to begin with (Click here for my previous post on the seventeenth amendment). Both actions will restore states rights, and to destroy political dynasties that unlimited terms allow. The result over time should be less federal control over the states and individuals, less spending, and lower taxes. And hopefully, we will be able to take our beloved country back.

Tonight, the House of Representatives Shredded the Constitution

2010-03-21T19:56:00.000-07:00

Tonight, I witnessed the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution unless a miracle happens. The House passed Obama's health care bill.

As a former employee of a state affiliate of the Department of Labor for more than 20 years, I can make a comparison to the Carter years, and this bill will cost us thousands of jobs. The only measurable increase in employment will be in federal employment with the eventual hiring of 15,000 additional IRS workers to monitor the health care program. Had the Obama administration not hired thousands of people for federal jobs, the unemployment rate would be higher than it presently is. I believe the unemployment rate will either remain the same or increase for the rest of this year.

Thousands upon thousands of doctors will now retire or resign--as the polls suggested, some to go to government medical facilities, others to sign up with the IRS, and many to retire.

The government has now nationalized banks, become part owners in the automobile industry and insurance companies, and now an additional 18% of the economy.

Industry will not employ workers, even if they are needed, when they have to spend much of their income in taxes. The Caterpiller CEO has estimated that it will cost them an additional $100,000 dollars a month for their employee health insurance program.

The next step is up the the states, many of which are planning on immediately filing a lawsuit in federal court claiming the bill is unconstitutional. I believe it will eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then, the next step is up to the voters on November 2nd, 2010, just six and a half months from now.

Kansas: Management Plan Underway for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

2010-03-20T06:36:00.000-07:00

NRA-ILA
Friday, March 12, 2010

The Fish and Wildlife Service has announced its intent to prepare a plan to guide management of the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years.

The Refuge was established in 1955 to provide wintering and migration stopover habitat for migratory birds. The 7,000-acre refuge is located in Stafford, Rice, and Reno Counties and provides a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting.

Public comments can be submitted until March 26th and emailed to quivira@fws.gov. For further information please call 303-236-4378. The Service is seeking information and suggestions on the scope of issues to consider in developing the plan. It is important that hunters let the Service know what changes should be made to the current hunting programs.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us

Were the founders of the United States Christians?

2010-03-16T14:48:00.000-07:00

There are those who would change history to get their way. The progressives in government and education would have us believe our forefathers were not Christians, or at most, deists, i.e., those who believe in some type of God, but not necessary the God of Israel and of the Christians. Following are some representative quotes from some of our founders:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here” (Patrick Henry in May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses).

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace" (Samuel Adams, Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.)

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me" (Dying words of Alexander Hamilton, July 12, 1804).

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also” (Thomas Jefferson).

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see" (Benjamin Franklin, March 9, 1790 in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University).

And finally, George Washington, the first president of the United States:
"I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation" (June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army).

I have read multiple dozens of quotations from those who would have us think these men quoted above, were not Christians, by quoting those sayings of our founders warning against religious control, and other negative aspects of religion. They are dishonest. In searching through their quotation, they know that these men were Christians, but they do not want Americans to know the true history of our Christian beginnings.

Stand By Me | Playing for Change

2010-03-14T14:41:00.001-07:00

State Sovereignty resolution in Kansas Update!

2010-03-06T11:18:00.000-08:00

Wednesday SCR 1615 was tabled.

Thursday, SCR 1615 was untabled and passed out of committee! Rep. Joe Patton made the motion. This shows how important your communication is to legislators, especially when done in a respectful and reasonable way, explaining the importance of the legislation.

Here are the updated votes:
State Sovereignty House Committee Votes. The Democrats are highlighted in yellow so it’s easy to see the party differences.

There have been several questions about the amendments made to SCR 1615 in the House Judiciary committee before the resolution was passed out of committee.
State Sovereignty House Committee Amendments

This resolution, as it left the committee, still conveys a firm message of state sovereignty to the federal government.

Keep in mind that other amendments can and most likely will be offered on the House floor – some good and some bad. This isn’t over yet.

If there is a particular change that someone finds objectionable, they should lobby a House member to attempt an amendment on the floor. However, this resolution now appears “bi-partisan,” because of the committee’s actions and could likely get more votes, which could have the result of sending a stronger message to the federal government.

Thank all of you who contacted your Kansas Representative. Please contact the House Judiciary Committee members and thank them.

State Sovereignty resolution in Kansas needs our help!

2010-03-04T11:59:00.000-08:00

I received a newsletter State Senator Mary Pilcher Cook sends to supporters of Kansas soveignty. I want to share it with my followers and others who find this web site through search engines. -- Rick

Yesterday left-wing legislators tabled House Resolution SCR 1615!

During debate in the House Judiciary Committee, Wed., Mar. 3, at 3:30 p.m., Rep. Annie Kuether made a motion to table the resolution, an attempt to stop the message from Kansas to the federal government to respect state sovereignty and recognize the limited nature of its powers.

Every Democrat except Rep. Jan Pauls voted to table the legislation, but so did several Republicans!

State Sovereignty House Committee Votes:

The Democrats are highlighted in yellow so it’s easy to see the party differences.
We need your help!

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee members who voted to table the resolution, or who didn't vote. Let them know, respectfully, you would like them to reconsider their vote, untable the measure and vote to pass this resolution out of committee!

In honor of your liberty,
Mary Pilcher Cook

13910 W. 58th Pl.
Shawnee, KS 66216

P.S. To make sure there isn't any confusion — this is not the Health Care Freedom Amendment. It is the concurrent resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment that would send a message to the federal government.

A Moment of Decision for Americans on Health Care

2010-03-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

I just heard President Obama deliver a speech trying to convince the Republicans, Independents, Conservative Democrats, and the American Public, that his modified health care is what the people want, and congress should pass it with an up or down vote, i.e., the nuclear option: conciliation--50 plus one vote in the senate.

No. He just attended the summit with the Republicans and he did not hear a word they said to him. Adding a point of two they suggested is not 'bi-partisan.' He said they debated the bill over and over. Not true. The Republicans were shut out, and in some cased the doors were shut against them.

Polls now definately show that the majority of Americans want to either start over from scratch, or drop it altogether. Yet, he and the progressive Democrats still want to jam it down the throats of Americans.

The President presents a special burden to Christians in this country. We are asked in scripture to pray for him, which I do daily. I do not require my president or congress to agree with me on everything, even if on only a few things. What really bothers me is that I can no longer trust anything my government or the president tells me.

I am a former Democrat, now 78, who quit the party some years ago as they 1) no longer represent the 'classic liberalism' of our forefathers, 2) they have been hijacked by progressives, 3) they have resorted to misleading and or outright lying about issues, and 4) they no longer seem to listen to or have any respect for those who placed them there.

Consequently, I no longer want our government to do anything more for me or to me. I can no longer afford my government. Most have to be removed this November, most Democrats and those Republicans who do not have the cajones to speak out against the chicanery in Washington.

But, good may come out of this. We may actually be able to clean house, as I am beginning to see others as fed up as I am. And after we toss them out, we need to bring charges against them for illegal legislation passed against the principles of the Constitution. Do we have the guts to do this?

Using the 14th Amendment to support the Second Amendment Unnecessary

2010-03-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

Commentary--

Talk of SCOTUS possibly using the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporatethe Second Amendment making it applicable to states bothers me a lot.

The Second Amendment stands on its own and needs no help from the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment, if we read the desire of those who placed it into the Constitution, was intended for use by the states and its citizens, and was to arm the states and its citizens to protect them from an abusive central government. The state governors were empowered by this amendment to raise up 'well-regulated' state militias to defend themselves against an abusive central government and other states who may have a cause against them.

The civil war initiated an improper use of militias. The North used its militias against the militias of the South to 'impose' their will against the Southern States in defending their 'state's rights' under the original federalism promoted by the Constitution. The North used 'slavery' as an excuse to fight the South, as the North could not compete against cheap labor the slaves provided.

When we understand the proper intention of the Second Amendment, we find the 14th Amendment only a hindrance in weakening the Second Amendment by using it as a crutch to 'support' the Second.

When will we ever learn?

Bill O'Reilly, Did You Really Mean What You Said?

2010-02-20T09:24:00.000-08:00

Bill, You really screwed up with this one:

I anticipate a lot of blow-back on this from Tea Partiers, Conservatives, and Second Amendment supporters.

The real negative aspect of Bill's remarks, is that now many of his viewers, including me, will wonder about other things he says, including even those that are true. I hope the feedback he is definatly to receive, will humble him a little.

So You Want to Take Your Country Back!

2010-02-15T11:35:00.000-08:00

Part Two: Term Limits

For years, many American citizens have become angry at the members of congress and senators who have been in congress for 30 to 40 years, who have developed loyal backers who keep them there election after election. These backers represent special interests, many which many or most citizens do not support.

Historically, term limits have figured most prominently in the executive branch of the U.S. government. While the Constitution did not originally mandate limits for the office of the presidency, George Washington, the first president (1789-1797), started the tradition of self-imposed limits by serving only two terms.[1] The precedent was followed for 144 years, until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for and won a third term in 1940 (he would eventually win a fourth).[2] In 1951, Congress passed and 41 states ratified the Twenty-Second Amendment, which forbade any citizen from being elected president more than twice (or once if he/she had previously served more than 2 years of another presidential term).[3]
1. ? Martin Kelly. "George Washington - First President of the United States," About.com.
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Source.
3. ? "U.S. Constitution," FindLaw.
Source.

Many members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, have been in congress over many presidential administrations. Some have built dynasties such at the Adams, Tafts, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Byrds, Dodds, Pryors, Bayhs, Bennetts, Bushes, and others. Some ascended to the ‘throne’ years after their fathers departed. Others immediately.

Senators and members of congress gain too much power and influence as their years of service add up. Special interest groups attach themselves to various ones and support them with political donations during local elections. We the taxpayers pay for their ‘earmarks, support of groups such as Planned Parenthood, Acorn, the unions, Gay and Lesbian groups, and favors to industries in their own states.

The Constitution did not specify term limits for publically elected officials. This was debated when the document was being debated. However, no limits were mandated. The Constitution does specify that senators would be selected by their respective state legislatures for six years, changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which I will cover in the next part of this series. Members of congress would serve two years and would have to run for re-election every two years.

In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, they brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor.

It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes, and the votes to restrict term limits in Congress fell short of that number. Source.

The above suggestions would limit all members of congress to 12 years service. This is enough for each house of congress to recognize those they want to elect to committee chair positions, but will limit influence in supporting special interests. As it is difficult, at the wikipedia article states, it to get enough votes to pass a term limits amendment to the constitution. The solution is to hold our candidates to national public office to promise to work toward developing and passing such an amendment.

The next step is up to us between now and November 2010.

Kansas Firearms Freedom Act

2010-02-10T07:16:00.000-08:00

F Y I
KSRA CRAFTED FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT
INTRODUCED IN LEGISLATURE TODAY (Feb 3 2010)!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kansas State Rifle Association Crafted
Kansas Firearms Freedom Act
Introduced Today

TOPEKA, Kansas (February 3, 2010) - The Kansas Firearms Freedom Act, House Bill 2620, crafted by The Kansas State Rifle Association was introduced this morning in the Kansas House of Representatives by Representative Ray Merrick and several other co-sponsors.

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is principally a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the "commerce clause," with firearms as the object - it is a state's rights exercise. Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state is beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

"The FFA may affect congressional authority other than for firearms." said Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas State Rifle Association. "This legislation is actually about reducing excessive Federal regulation in areas such as education and intrastate trade."

Proponents contend that the commerce clause was amended, by the Tenth Amendment, and that the Tenth Amendment, being the most recent expression of the enacting authority, must prevail over an unlimited interpretation of commerce clause authority to regulate firearms made and retained in a state.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The renewed debate over states rights and the pending litigation over the FFA have set the stage for re-examination of the scope of federal commerce clause authority. While it is still unclear exactly where this re-examination will end up, the outcome could drastically change application of federal authority.

"The Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted by two states, Montana and Tennessee." said Stoneking. "Kansas makes the twenty-first additional state to introduce this bill and five other states have expressed their intentions to introduce this legislation at this time."

Contact:

Patricia Stoneking, President
Kansas State Rifle Association
P. O. Box 117
Bonner Springs, KS 66012
(913) 667-3044
vfm-targetmaster@bizkc.rr.com

HOW TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS

To find your Federal Representative and Senators use these links:

Click Here To Find Your US Representative

Click Here To Find Your US Senator

To find your State Legislators use these links:

Click Here To Find Your Kansas Legislators

To send letters to the White House:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Click This Link for the White House Web Site

So You Want To Take Your Country Back!

2010-02-08T16:00:00.000-08:00

Do we really have what it takes to return to a Constitutional government?

How often have you heard this question lately? Especially during 2009? You’ve probably lost track of how many. If you’re reading this, the probability is you have said it yourself. Yes, I have also heard it many time and have also said it myself.

So, I decided to find out how we got this way. We now owe 12 trillion, 382 billion, 984 million, and some odd thousands---increasing so rapidly, I could not keep up with it---as of 4:40 pm, this afternoon, the 8th of February, 2010. This is $40,000 per person; $113,000 per taxpayer. Check for yourself. It will be even higher when you do. Click here: US Debt Clock.Org.

The promise that our taxes will not go up, ring hollow, as we know differently. I received my new co-pay schedule for my advantage program under Medicare, and they have gone up drastically. I am 78, and already, my medical teams are scheduling me for less follow-up visits for my cancer, as they will be paid less for my care. How many other seniors have found out the bad news about their care? And I will not get an increase in my social security for the next two years, at least. However, the government will take out more part B as a ‘premium’ on my advantage health program.

The printing of money by the Fed will cause inflation within, probably during the last part of this year, and will increase each year during the next few years. Inflation is a ‘hidden’ tax on everything that rises due to inflation.

Yes, I want to take my country back, and I have reviewed history of laws and events related to the constitution from its ratification until today. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession.

The ratification required 9 of the then 13 states. New Hampshire, The ninth state ratified the constitution on March 4, 1789, the beginning date for our government to begin operation (Source).

Interspersed among other posts on current news as it happens involving our government and the constitution, I will post a series of articles denoting the things I feel we must do to replace our present government, a government of the special interests, by those whose incumbency was paid for by special interests, and for the special interests with a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people. There is a cost to taking our government back. It will be a long and difficult journey, as those currently in power will not want to leave! They will do everything, legal and illegal, to maintain all that the progressives have achieved. We have to be steadfast and make up our minds not to falter in the process.

I hope we are up to it. God bless our wonderful country.

Switzerland's Version of the US Second Amendment

2010-02-04T09:11:00.000-08:00

Why No One Invades Switzerland

Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution: 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.

Our Second Amendment prevented the Japanese from invading the United States after they bombed Pearl Harbor: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This was a statement made by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto (Great Quotations)

Switzerland's example is similar to what the founding fathers intended when they inserted the Second Amendment into the Constitution. Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington, First President of the United States.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788. Source.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Source.

By and large, the states followed the intent of the Second Amendment by establishing their own militias under the governor's office. Both North and South fought the War Between the States with their militias. The Second Amendment was designed to protect each state from abuse from the federal government and other states.

This Amendment is the one which protects our First Amendment rights of free speech. If we lose it, we lose both.

U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago

2010-01-30T12:39:00.000-08:00

Friday, January 29, 2010
NRA-ILA

On Monday, January 25, the U.S. Supreme Court granted NRA’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.” Read Article Here.