Law Enforcment: Is there any law you would not enforce?

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

Written on September 16, 2011 by The Godfather

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

Mr. Johnson had banners hanging in his classroom at Westview High School in San Diego, Calif., for more than 30 years with phrases like “In God We Trust,” “All Men Are Created Equal,” and “They Are Endowed by Their Creator.” Another sign contained the words “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” and “God Shed His Grace On Thee.” Each of these postings is part of America’s religious history, in particular, America’s Christian history. Read More in Godfather Politics.

This is far more serious than a mere violation of free speech of first amendment rights, it is a violation of the freedom of religion, i.e., the restriction of personal beliefs allowed to be displayed.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords Reading the Constitution

Representative Giffords Reading the First Amendment

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

Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second and First Amendment Paralleled

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

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

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

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

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

The First Amendment According to NPR & Media Matters

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

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

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

First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary---Rick

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

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

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

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

The National Guard is NOT the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If the National Guard is not the militia, what is the militia, and who constitutes it?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cybersecurity Bill Gives President Broad Powers Over Internet

Posted 08/31/09 on POLITICS DAILY

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

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

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