Roots of Liberty Part 3

/in /by

Moving on in your independence and Roots of Liberty series we find ourselves in 1612  and the free spending King Charles who liked to to romp around Europe soaking up mirth and merriment at his leisure, incurring debt and paying that debt with the peoples money. Parliament finally got fed up and told the King they were going to refuse to implement new taxes so the King being King imposed the taxes anyway, but called it a “Forced Loan.” Not much different from what we have today when Obama uses the power of Executive Order to go around Congress. But 7 Knights from the Kings court decided not to comply because they knew it was taxation without representation and not lawful.

Roots of Liberty Part 2

/in /by

This is part 2 in the Roots of Liberty series.  The 1100 Charter of Liberty Henry made a promise that Kings will no longer be evil and oppressive and vowed to end all oppressive practices. He mentions the inheritance tax as evil and oppressive. He also equates that men who make the laws consider themselves above the law that it too is evil and oppressive. So ironically we have a king in 1100 that had a better understanding of liberty than Congress or most of our politicians and if you trade liberty for security then you are saying that it’s ok for the NSA to violate the law. This was yesterdays Podcast and today moving on from King Henry I to John (one of the most evil and oppressive Kings) the people still had King Henry I promise, however in spite of the promise the people still had a problem.

Roots of Liberty Part 1

/in /by

Reconnect with your sense of independence. If you don’t reconnect with your independence and help others do the same than you just might find yourself being randomly searched as you walk down the street as recently happened in Chicago. Or you might find yourself spending a night in jail like a university of Virginia student did. She went to the grocery store to buy some items for a sorority event and as she was leaving, unidentified men jumped on her car brandishing guns, breaking windows and in her terror she called 911. She pulled out of the parking lot and then stopped when police showed up. She thought she was being helped but she was  not being attacked by thugs, she was being attacked by ATF agents in plain clothes with no identifying marks of any kind. We must reconnect with our independence. and if we don’t reconnect on a fundamental level than we’ll never be grounded enough to restore a 1776 level of independence and you could be the next person put in jail for going to the grocery store. Independence was not designed or born in 1776. It was actually given birth in 1100. So listen in and reconnect.

NullificationPart 1

/in /by

After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest. They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court. We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate. Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. The truth is, not only should the States be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates. Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.” So is this the end? Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits? Or is there a remedy yet remaining? Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this “treasonous” as some have suggested?

To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States. These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. This compact, or contract, made among the States not only created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract. Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation. That is to say, they are sovereign – independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government. All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people. The 10th Amendment makes that very clear.

“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.” 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government. The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers. James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45:

 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…” Federalist Paper #45

Madison then goes on to explain “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Federalist Paper #45

Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.

Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States. When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless. Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking. This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government. What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.

“That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States. What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away? The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever. The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant. What will be the purpose of elections then? We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom.

 “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798

So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy? What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue? The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic. It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…

READ PART II HERE

Show Brandon

Immigration: Enforcement Not Reform!

/in /by

Immigration reform seems to be one of the go-to plays for politicians seeking votes these days. Everyone trots out some plan to integrate illegal immigrants into the tax system in a program that would eventually lead to the possibility of citizenship.  It is hard to see how this is any kind of solution to real problems. Think about this logically…currently illegal immigrants are working in the United States…they are getting paid in cash…they are getting free schooling, sometimes even to the college level…they are getting free medical care…they are getting food stamps, all WITHOUT paying any taxes.  WHY would they volunteer for a program that will force them to pay taxes for a benefit that they already receive?  WHAT is the actual incentive of citizenship?  I know the government has a warped sense of reality, but they can’t actually believe being forced to pay taxes is a BENEFIT!  The catchphrase today is “get them to come out of the shadows.”  What shadows?  They are breaking numerous laws IN BROAD DAYLIGHT! Not only that, sweeping immigration reform is not simply about the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce…it is about ALL illegal immigrants, from all over the globe, to include potential terrorists!

The fact is, we don’t simply need immigration REFORM; we need immigration ENFORCEMENT!    I thought the President wanted us to be more “like Spain, Italy, and Greece”?  What other nation gives a free pass to illegal immigration?  Try to sneak into any other country in the world and live there while breaking the law and see what they do to you…deportation will be a blessing.  Why is it only in America that we solve a criminal problem by making the laws conform to the criminals?  If this is the solution to criminal activity, since we can’t possibly stop people from stealing, why don’t we eliminate the laws that criminalize theft?  The government’s solution to gun crimes was MORE LAWS, why is the solution to illegal immigration ignoring the law?  Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court declared that there is nothing illegal about being in this country illegally.  Of course, you have to go to law school to get that stupid!

George Washington said in his Farewell Address, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence…the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Lack of immigration enforcement is the real problem.  It is lack of immigration enforcement that allowed Faisal Shahzad (Times Square Bomber) to attempt to blow up Times Square.  Shahzad was a naturalized citizen, but it is his questionable naturalization process that should sound the real alarm about immigration reform.   Shahzad was born in Pakistan. In December 1998 he was granted an F-1 student visa, a visa requiring sponsorship by and attendance in a college.In 1999 he was placed on a terrorist WATCH LIST. Between 1999 and 2008 Shahzad engaged in documented terrorist activity with known terrorists.  (See CBS News Investigates, May 5, 2010)  On May 1, 2010, after gaining full citizenship, Shahzad tried to blow up Times Square.  That means that neither the Bush administration, nor the Obama administration (if you can call them two different administrations) enforced immigration laws. As a result of the Shahzad incident, Eric Holder held an interview with ABC in which his suggestion was to alter our Bill of rights and give the government more flexibility in controlling our Constitutionally protected rights!

How did a man with known and continued operations with terrorists get full citizenship?  The answer is, improper immigration enforcement, not lack of visas.  In April of 2011, the Government Accountability Office issued the results of an audit conducted on our nation’s visa offices.  They found the greatest discrepancy in the evaluation process of our visa offices was in determining “WHAT LEVEL” of terrorist activity should deny someone a visa!  What in the world would convince a government that it is reasonable to give KNOWN TERRORISTS visas?

Fast forward to the present day.  In January of 2013, the Department of Homeland Security, executed a program called The Global Entry Program that expedites the visa applications of Saudi Arabians.  In this expedited process, the Saudi government helps approve the US Visa’s for its own citizens.  The Saudi applicants then get preferential treatment in obtaining visas and they do not even have to submit to customs inspections when they enter the country!  Did we forget that 15 of the terrorists that blew up the Twin Towers were from Saudi Arabia?  Did we forget that Saudi Arabia has the highest jihad recidivism rate of any nation regarding those released from Guantanamo?  I’m sure we didn’t forget any of this.  But I am sure that because of the corruption of our government they simply don’t care.  It’s all about the government’s agenda (read: OIL) and not the safety of the people.

Our government has become so corrupted by foreign influence that it is no longer concerned with the welfare of its own citizens.  The only thing this government is concerned with is maintaining relations with powerful nations and destroying to the Constitution to maintain its own power.

We are granting visas to known terrorists and at the same time demanding immigration REFORM to allow these people greater access to our country and our Constitution.  Now the GOP is walking down the same path to win back the Hispanic vote from the Democrats.  When will this insanity end? How about instead of throwing the doors open wide on the visa program, let’s have some actually oversight and safeguards on the visa program?  I say let those who wish to become citizens be put in a separate visa program like the proposed Red Card program.  Require background checks, credential them, fingerprint them and track them.  If you are a “good guy” then you shouldn’t mind letting us know who you are and submitting to the rule of law just like everyone else.  How about when an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime, deport them instead of turning them loose again on the streets?  And for goodness sake SECURE THE BORDERS!!!  What is the point of deportation, if our border is as porous as a sieve?

Enough with the thinly veiled voter drives disguised as immigration reform.  Enough with bowing to Saudi oil interests.  Let’s get the interests of OUR citizens and the defense of the Constitution and the rule of law at the top of the agenda.

Why The UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates The Constitution

/in /by

The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving citizen. Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its sovereignty regarding that particular issue. An agreement with the UN removes the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own laws free of UN control and dictate. The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception. It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious of this present attempt to remove our public liberty.

The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult to understand because the structure is so bad. It is as if someone who holds English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress. I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are many.

The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to make Americans abandon the entire treaty.

The States Parties to this Treaty,

1. Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

This might not cause alarm to the average person who has never read the UN Charter. But those who have will understand that we are already on shaky ground. It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just the preamble to the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards. So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to international law. How does international law define “threat to peace”? What activity will cause “breaches of peace”? Compliance with this treaty now obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law? Seriously? This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed. This move toward global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.

Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation. What is the purpose to be considered when doing so? According to the Charter, these laws must solve international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and promote human rights.

So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and possession of firearms to:

1. Act collectively with and in compliance with international law;

2. Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to peace”;

3. Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach of peace”;

4. Solve international problems.

These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used. This is completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of our right to keep and bear arms. If you doubt this statement, please read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second amendment. There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and maintain the protection of our second amendment rights.

Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.

Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade and unauthorized use. That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with “illegal.” If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established laws, surely they would have said so. They did not, however, and by stating “illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not codified by law but established by a “common custom, rule, or standard.”

The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law. Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ratifying this treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act of treason.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address 1796.

Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce. That would be a lie and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion. Article 9 requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within that nation. We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.

How is each government supposed to control this buying and selling?

The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control system.” Great…another federal bureaucracy!

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms.

What will this new federal agency do to comply with this Treaty?

They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final destination.” They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.” And this bureaucracy will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control” these firearms.

How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the firearms?

The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to maintain records regarding the “quantity,model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.” They must keep these records for a minimum of 10 years. These reports must be submitted to the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.

In summary, the national control agencies will collect all information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years. Make no mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.

But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty. Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State Parties. Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all governments in the Treaty. So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too bad.

What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of this Treaty?

Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty, but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw. So you can withdraw, but the UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty. Are you kidding me?

The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals. It will remove the need for the government to confiscate weapons. All future sales will be so heavily regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible. If you still wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing they will keep that information on file for 10 years. You will also consent to submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm. They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.

Our second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This Treaty is a violation of this amendment and is unconstitutional. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be null and void and the people will not be bound by it. Don’t believe me? Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.

The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what will THE PEOPLE do about it? Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that our states nullify this treaty as our founders require? Or will we blindly submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us? Sam Adams said,

‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity or will we involve them in our doom?

Show Final Mueller

He's No JFK!

/in /by

In a recent State of the Union Address Obama invoked the name of JFK, in an apparent attempt to link himself to the Democrat President.  I assume by making a reference to a President respected by many, particularly by Democrats, Obama hopes to place himself on that same plane of adoration.  But how similar are these two Presidents?  There may be some similarities, but there are also very distinct differences.

Obama began his recent address with the following statement:

Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress…It is my task” he said, “to report the State of the Union— to improve it is the task of us all.”

Obama’s use of this statement is interesting in what it omits.  Here is Kennedy’s original statement:

“Members of the Congress, the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress. We are all the trustees for the American people, custodians of the American heritage.  It is my task to report the State of the Union—to improve it is the task of us all.” JFK Jan 11, 1962

The word “trustees” describes a government hired by the people as agents of the people, subservient to the people.  Obama strides as a colossus above the people and where he cannot find willing submission to his desires, he unilaterally enforces his will over the people. “Custodians” would suggest a duty to preserve our Constitutional heritage, not fundamentally transform the foundations of the Republic. Obama thinks, as Chris Rock proclaimed that he is the “boss” of the people, our “dad of the country” and if Obama decides that we no longer need portions of our Constitution, we should bow to his will. Obama despises the Constitution and the limitations it places upon his monarchy and his statements are full of contradictions and deception.  This statement, taken from his State of the Union, is a perfect example.

 The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem.

That may be true of the American people, but Obama doesn’t really believe that, and his own words give him away.  In this same speech, Obama directly contradicts himself so many times it makes me wonder how he ever choked out the original assertion.  Everything in the speech was about what the government will and must do to solve all of our problems, including the assertion that private industry is so incapable of doing anything that it must have government as its partner.  Sadly, we know that many in private business are only happy to take tax-payer dollars while they line their own pockets.  Government subsidizing private enterprise only engenders waste and corruption, and the end goal is power, not progress.

Here is a difference. While Obama forces communism upon us through Orwellian propaganda and coercion, JFK fought communism:

“There are many people in the world who really don’t understand–or say they don’t–what is the greatest issue between the free world and Communist world. Let them come to Berlin!  There are some who say that “communism is the wave of the future.” Let them come to Berlin! And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere, “we can work with the Communists.” Let them come to Berlin! And there are even a few who say “yes, that it’s true, that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress.” Lass’ sie nach Berlin en kommen! Let them come to Berlin!”

While Obama and his surrogates encourage racial division, JFK fought racism and discrimination:

“It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated.  This is not a sectional issue…Nor is this a partisan issue…This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone…We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”

While Obama holds the government to be the ultimate and only solution to every problem, JFK said:

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.   My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Obama asserted, throughout his State of the Union, don’t worry about doing anything, WE will do it all for you.  Far from calling for Americans to strive to produce, he declares that those who are successful and productive must be punished.  While JFK may have been a proponent of expanding the welfare state in many ways, he still had more of an understanding than this President of what distinguishes America from third world philosophies that run counter to a belief in a limited government that derives its powers from the people.

While Obama seems to worship government as god, JFK knew the source of our rights:

“And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God… let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”   Inaugural Address, JFK

There remains another distinguishing factor between Obama and JFK.

Obama is likely the most pro-abortion president we have ever had.  Never in the history of this country have we had a president that voted multiple times to deny medical assistance to babies born through failed abortions.  Never before in the history of America have we had a president that made a public statement that children should be considered “punishment” to their parents. NEVER would Obama nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice, but JFK did.  JFK nominated pro-life judge, Byron White, for the U.S. Supreme Court.   Judge White served on the Supreme Court during the Roe v. Wade case and opposed the majority opinion offering his dissent:

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

 –

 The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

The shameful thing is that the Democrats are ignorantly buying into this comparison; believing that Obama is a Democrat just like JFK.  While I am no JFK apologist, Obama is NO JFK Democrat.  Obama is a communist, a Marxist of the highest order. Sorry, Dad, this Chaika is not my grandfather’s Oldsmobile.

Government Intimidation As An Attack On The First Amendment

/in /by

1st-amendmentMuslim leaders in TN, sponsored by the US Attorney’s office (attorney Bill Killian) and the FBI (agent Kenneth Moore) are going to hold propaganda meeting to try to convince people that they can be prosecuted under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for speaking out against Islamic Terrorism and Shari’ah Law.

“Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.”

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian then referred to a post on Facebook that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”  Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

THIS IS A LIE with the sole purpose to put fear in people’s mind and chill the very freedom of expression that the First Amendment embodies.

WE DO have the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.  Our Constitution expresses the fundamental principle that rights to speech and assembly are held by the people and the government must protect these rights, not limit them.  The First Amendment was NOT established to protect popular or politically correct speech.  To the contrary, the First Amendment was established to protect offensive and unpopular speech. The Supreme Court of the United States memorably stated in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) “[i]t is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989), The Supreme Court reiterated this understanding:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The fundamental principle that offensive speech must be protected is rooted in the understanding that we must allow a “free market place of ideas” and that freedom of speech “reflects a ‘profound national commitment’ to the principle” and “‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”  The Supreme Court has “consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues.” (Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988))

To insinuate that when people speak out about public issues, even when opposing religious issues, is a violation of someone’s civil rights is absurd.  This would be to pit the First Amendment against itself and would cause the implosion of the very essence of who these United States really are!

The Supreme Court has long recognized this to be true.  The Supreme Court in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., proclaimed that a citizen’s right to speak on matters of public concern “‘is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.’”

This Court even expresses the understanding that criticizing a religion is a matter of public concern, and not a “purely private” matter.  In Dun & Bradstreet, the Court recognizes the criticism of Catholicism to be protected by the First Amendment.

“[S]peech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” (Dun & Bradstreet). This is so even if the speech may be offensive to listeners. “‘Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection.’” (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell)

To allow the government to shut down speech because someone might be offended is allowing the audience to control the message and that is what we call a “heckler’s veto.”  The Supreme Court has said time and time again that to allow the government to restrict speech due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience is fundamentally unconstitutional.  Every attorney that goes through any law school in America is taught this their very first year of law school. (Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939), Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 504 U.S. 123 (1992), just to name a few)

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.   The following are twelve Supreme Court cases, beginning in 1939, that exemplify these principles: Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 55 -56; City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 65 , 72 (1983); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462 -463 (1980); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S., at 745 -746; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 63 -65, 67-68 (1976) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16 -17 (1976); Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972); Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567 (1970); O’Brien, 391 U.S., at 382 ; Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S., at 142 -143 (1966); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S., at 368 -369 (1931).

Neither the First Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act permit the government to limit speech.  They certainly DO NOT authorize the prosecution of citizens for expressions of this protected speech.  To have a US Attorney sit before the people of TN and insinuate otherwise should be regarded as malpractice.  For a representative of the Department of Justice, via the FBI, to participate in this attempt to chill the speech of our citizens should be a crime of the highest degree and alarm all who love this country.

Amendment 8, Trusting Government Over God

/in /by

Many states are pushing forward legislation to remove restrictions on the use of government funding for religious based activities or institutions.  The argument in favor of such legislation claims preventing or restricting government money to religious organizations is an expression of religious bigotry and discrimination.  That argument is a dangerous falsehood. Florida currently has this issue on their November ballot.  Florida’s Amendment 8, titled “Religious Freedom”, is a misnomer to say the least. If this Amendment or others like it are passed they will actually be detrimental to Religious Liberty.  This type of legislation will not promote religious liberty it will do the opposite:

  1. It will open a door to silence religious organizations and their beliefs in order to receive government funding.
  2. It will force tax payers to fund ALL RELIGIOUS activity, to include Islamic, Satanic, and cult religious activity.
  3. It will give the government the ability to promote religious activities through government funding, directly undermining the true principle of separation of church and state; the fundamental principle that government has no place in the church.

If you question these conclusions, please read on and find out the truth.  If you agree, please share this analysis so we may defeat this type of legislation and support religious liberty throughout the nation.

In Florida, Amendment 8 is an effort to repeal the Blaine Amendment, a common provision in many state Constitutions.  The Blaine Amendment reads in part:

“No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”

Opponents of the Blaine Amendment claim that the restriction upon using government funds for religious purposes or institutions is an attempt to discriminate against religions.  Notice there is no particular religion singled out in the language of the amendment as some claim, the amendment clearly says “any.”  The truth is the Blaine Amendment reiterates principles dedicated to the preservation of Religious Liberty and the prevention of government intrusion into the church.

The newly proposed language will establish a Constituional right to tax funds.  It reads, “No individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief.”  Did you catch that?  NO INDIVIDUAL or entity may be barred from receiving funding.  Wow! That’s a big door.  Notice that the language does not specify organizations engaged in non-religious activity such as soup kitchens, as some supporters falsely claim.

In our ignorance, we are repeating a battle in American history that our founders already fought and settled.  Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, several legislators, Patrick Henry being one, put forth a bill to pay Christian Teachers with tax dollars.  The bill was titled, A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.  The purpose of this bill was to pay Christian teachers’ salaries out of collected tax revenue.  Patrick Henry was a great defender of Liberty and an ardent Christian.  In this case, his desire to defend the faith blinded him to the dangers of inviting the government into the church in the form of tax subsidies.  Fortunately, there were other legislators present that knew the dangers of such an act, and their stand helped to clarify why good intentions can lead to dangerous destinations.

To understand why it is wrong for tax dollars to pay for religious activities, we must really think about the process as a whole.   When the government pays a person or an organization to perform a service with tax dollars, that individual or organization places themselves under the oversight of the government, much like an employee.  Since, tax dollars are not the property of the government but of the American people, the American people cannot allow the government to spend their money with no accountability.   Therefore, regulation of government spending of taxpayer dollars is required.  So, to take tax dollars invites government regulation, influence and control into the religious organization.  In opposition to Henry’s Bill, an “Association of Ministers and Delegates” wrote this response:

“No man or set of Men are entitled to exclusive or separate Emoluments or Privileges from the Community but in consideration of Public Services.  (Quoting the Virginia Declaration of Rights)  If, therefore, the State provides a Support for Preachers of the Gospel, and they receive it in Consideration of their Services, they must certainly when they preach, act as Officers of the State and ought to be accountable thereto for their Conduct. . . .”

When tax dollars are spent, the organization using those funds becomes a quasi-government agent and thus opens itself up to government control.  The government cannot allow the use of tax dollars in a way that will discriminate based upon criteria such as race, gender, religion, creed, etc.  So if a religious organization accepts tax dollars for the performance of a service, the government must regulate that organization’s activity and prevent discriminatory practices.  The organization can no longer perform its service free to the dictates of their religious convictions, but must adhere to a non-discriminatory practice as regulated and dictated by the government. In 1776, our founders believed that taking tax dollars into the churches was paramount to the destruction of religious liberty:

“the Consequence of this is, that those whom the state employs in its Service, it has a right to regulate and dictate to; it may judge and determine who shall preach; when and where they shall preach.  The mutual obligations between Preachers and Societies they belong to . . . must evidently be weakened — Yea, farewell to the Bill of Rights!”

There are two main problems with Amendment 8. First, proponents of Amendment 8 professes that individuals motivated by “religious convictions” often engage in the same types of services offered by the government and therefore should be eligible for government funding.

“WHEREAS, their religious convictions motivate some Floridians to establish religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, and other benevolent institutions that provide valuable services to society and to receive or utilize such valuable services from these benevolent providers, which could be subsidized by the state through public programs,” (emphasis added)

However, the government’s benevolent services are not and cannot be motivated by religious convictions and they cannot provide religiously affiliated services because non-discriminatory requirements will not allow it.  A private organization operating on religious conviction to establish religiously affiliated services will have to check those beliefs at the door, if they want to operate using government funding. To do otherwise would compel those who do not share those convictions to provide funding for them.  This compulsion is unconstitutional and immoral.  By becoming funded by the government, the original intent motivating the Floridians to action is nullified and they are no longer able to operate with religious conviction under a religious affiliation.   But listen to what Thomas Jefferson has to say.

“to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;”  Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

We must really think about Jefferson’s statement.  I understand that many Christian organizations are pushing for this type of legislation.  But have they thought this through?  When we compel the government to provide tax dollars to fund our Christian organizations which means the government must also fund ALL RELIGIOUS organizations.  Your tax dollars will be used to fund not only Christian organizations but also Jewish, Islamic, Satanic, every religion you can imagine will now be funded by our tax dollars.

The Christian organizations who have suggested the Florida Amendment justify such by saying they are engaging in “secular activities” like secular organizaitons and are just as “entitled” to this money as the secular organizations.  However, this amendment does not limit government funding to secular activities.  That means that your tax dollars will also being paying for religious activities as well.  Our tax dollars will fund the prosthelytizing of all religions as well as all Islamic activity wich will include Madrassas and Sharia Law.

It is immoral and sinful and a complete violation of my liberty to force me to pay for a religion I do not believe in!

The second problem lies within the first.  Person’s acting upon “religious convictions” ought to also believe those religious convictions.  To profess to operate under the conviction and direction of God and then demand the government to provide money, is a violation of the First Commandment.

“[using tax dollars for religiously based programs] tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments,”   Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

It tells a world of nonbelievers that even believers cannot trust God to provide for the needs of His children, and that all must rely on government.  It takes a nation that pledges to be “one nation under God” and tells the world we are actually “one nation under government.”   This shameful display of lack of faith undermines the believers dependence on God, and undermines the gospel itself, declaring to the world that God is NOT sufficient to provide for our needs on earth, so how can we trust Him with eternal things?

Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. [Relying upon government provisions serves]  to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance 1785

The true application of the principle of “separation of church and state” is one that was won with over 700 years of battle. (for a detailed study in the true application of this doctrine, read here)  This principle, that teaches that government has no place in the church, is wrecked by the likes of Amendment 8, where Christians, themselves, beg for their own destruction.  I am amazed that even in light of the current battle to keep the government out of our churches in the matter of healthcare mandates, that Christians can even consider demanding government money for programs established upon religious convictions.  Haven’t we seen well enough that where the government is invited in, it will soon run the house? How can we with clear conscience declare the government has no right to force a religion to operate outside its conscience and provide healthcare contrary to its beliefs and with the same body demand the government give the church money?

“Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,”  Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

It is time for Christians of all denominations to live their testimony and show the world that we serve a living God who is sufficient in both eternal AND temporal things.  How else can we be not just hearers of the word but also doers?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.  Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 6:24, 30, 33

Christians, do what is right before God and vote NO on Amendment 8.

Time to Stand Against Tyranny- E-Rally Notice

/in /by

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Obama has made direct threats against States who FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT ruling and refuse to establish exchanges. Any question of whether this man is a tyrant or not should be answered. He is attempting to divide the states and pit citizen against citizen. WILL WE TOLERATE A BULLY? Will we allow our States to cower and submit? If we do, we must accept the consequences: Religious Liberty? Freedom of Speech? Right to Redress Your Grievances? Right to Bear Arms? Sovereignty of the States? There will be NO LIMIT to federal power. Join us in the vital action. Do your part to save the Liberty of our children and grandchildren. Support this E-Rally and SPREAD THE WORD!

THE E-RALLY OFFICIALLY BEGINS SUNDAY DECEMBER 2, 2012 3PM AND CONTINUES UNTIL WE HAVE THE ATTENTION OF OUR STATES.

EMAIL/LETTER CAMPAIGN:

To unify and simplify this movement please follow the following suggestions when communicating with your Representative. We are trying to get our point across as simply and easily as possible.

1.ALL subject lines for emails must read the same to make the appropriate impact. So please use the following subject line for all emails sent: NO STATE EXCHANGE!

2.For any letter faxed: Please add the following text before the greeting: RE: NO STATE EXCHANGE!

3.Make sure you send your communication MULTIPLE TIMES over the next 24 hours. Multiple times an hour is not too much. We don’t get to vote more than once (hmmm not supposed to anyway) but we certainly can complain more than once.

4.Please feel free to address your concerns anyway you feel comfortable. Here are ways you can contact your Representative:

a.Americans For Prosperity Action Alert: http://www.kintera.org/c.dvKQIcO0IkJ6H/b.6645695/k.8CA5/Action_Center/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=dvKQIcO0IkJ6H&b=6645695&aid=519012

b. Open Letter to Governors and States to Stand Againt Obamacare:

c.Tenth Amendment Center Nullification Act:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/

TWITTER CAMPAIGN:

Twitter can be a very effective way of creating buzz, spreading the word and getting elected and media attention. Here are some good tips from Slade O’Brien:

1. REMEMBER to ALWAYS use the hashtag #NoStateXchngwhen tweeting about the State Exchange campaign. This will track all tweets and help magnify our combined efforts.

2. Whenever you have room include your representative, senator, and governor on the tweet.

3. When Tweeting you may want to Tweet the links to the CATO video, Goldwater Institute Video, one of the newspaper articles below, or the action alert.

4. We should also remind the legislature that 21 other states have stepped up and refused to implement the exchanges.

Here are some sample tweets you can copy and paste:

  1. (insert your governor/representative)you need to watch this video! 21 states have said NO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw #NoStateXchng
  2. Please RT Goldwater Institute video against State Healthcare Exchange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOooZNOg7XU #NoStateXchng

FACEBOOK CAMPAIGN

Post and share links to newspaper articles, videos, action alerts on your facebook page and elected’s facebook pages. Again ALWAYS use the hashtag #NoStateXchng

Some other helpful links:

1.Wall Street Journal Article on why State’s should reject Exchanges. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324556304578121012109574832-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html?mod=wsj_valetbottom_email

2.CATO Video on the State Exchanges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw

3.Goldwater Institute short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOooZNOg7XU

4.National Journal: http://news.yahoo.com/states-dont-set-insurance-exchanges-obamacare-implode-134919702–politics.html

We must continue to do EVERYTHING in our power to regain control of this rogue federal government. Our States are our last reasonable stand. We must understand that without the sovereignty of the States, without submission of the federal government to the States, the Constitution is made irrelevant and we will have a MONARCHY! (Please go to this LINK if you would like further instruction on state sovereignty)

We cannot idly sit by while the sacrifices of our founders are pushed aside and we fundamentally transform this nation into a Socialist Monarchy. PLEASE share this E-RALLY and get on board. Choose you this day. If you choose to not fight, no complaints allowed, only regret!

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~ Winston Churchill