Tag Archive: government

Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

w.w.w = Wild, Wild, Web…  Here comes the Gov’t reaching into privacy!
By ALEX KATZ and COLLEEN LONG | Associated Press

FILE - In this Oct. 1, 2011 file photo, police arrest protesters on New York's Brooklyn Bridge during march by Occupy Wall Street. Twitter agreed on Friday, Sept. 14, 2012, to hand over about three months' worth of tweets to a judge overseeing the criminal trial of Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester, a case that has become a closely watched fight over how much access law enforcement agencies should have to material posted on social networks. (AP Photo/Stephanie Keith, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — Twitter on Friday agreed to hand over about three months’ worth of tweets to a judge overseeing the criminal trial of an Occupy Wall Street protester, a case that has become a closely watched fight over how much access law enforcement agencies should have to material posted on social networks.
The social networking site had been threatened with steep fines if it did not comply with Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr.’s order to turn over the records in the case of Malcolm Harris.
Twitter’s lawyer, Terryl Brown, called the options it faced — waiving its right to appeal or being in held in contempt of court — “unfair” and “unjust,” though ultimately Brown handed the judge a thick white envelope full of Harris’ information.
“We are disappointed that Twitter is essentially giving up the fight,” Harris’ attorney Martin Stolar said after the court hearing.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office said Harris’ messages could show whether he was aware of the police orders he’s charged with disregarding during a protest at the Brooklyn Bridge.
The case began as one of hundreds of disorderly conduct prosecutions after an Oct. 1 march in New York that brought the Occupy protest movement its first burst of worldwide attention.  Harris was among more than 700 people arrested when protesters tried to cross the bridge, many on the roadway.
Police said demonstrators ignored warnings to stay on a pedestrian path.  Harris, an editor for an online culture magazine, and others say they thought they had police permission to go on the roadway.
Prosecutors want tweets and user information from Sept. 15 to Dec. 31 that were taken down from the public site. After a certain period of time, tweets are automatically flushed out by the system and placed in the site’s stored electronic records, Stolar said.
Harris, 23, said Friday that he did not delete any incriminating tweets.  He told reporters he wasn’t sure what the tweets might contain. “Three and a half months, a lot of nonsense,” he said.
Asked whether the case had affected what he posted to Twitter, Harris said: “I guess you’d have to check the feed to find out. It’s still public.”
Earlier this year, Harris sought to block prosecutors from subpoenaing the information from Twitter Inc. The company stepped in after the judge ordered the messages to be turned over.
Harris had argued that seeking the accompanying user information violated his privacy and free association rights. The data could give prosecutors a picture of his followers, their interactions and his location at various points, Stolar said.
Twitter had said the case could put it in the unwanted position of having to take on legal fights that users could otherwise conduct on their own. Company lawyers argued that Harris had every right to fight the subpoena.
Its user agreements say users own content they post and can challenge demands for their records.  The company argued in a court filing that it would be “a new and overwhelming burden” for Twitter to have to champion such causes for them.  The judge sided with the company on one point: It didn’t have to turn over some of the tweets prosecutors’ sought, because a federal law requires a court-approved search warrant, not just a subpoena, for stored electronic communications that are less than 180 days old.  Sciarrino said he would review all the material he ordered turned over and would provide “relevant portions” to prosecutors.  In a separate proceeding, Harris is challenging Sciarrino’s ruling on handing over the tweets. Sciarrino said Friday that he will keep the records sealed at least until a Sept. 21 hearing on the matter.  Harris has pleaded not guilty and his trial is scheduled for December.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 15 days in jail or a $500 fine, his lawyer said.

September 9, 2012

By James Arlandson

Liberalism, generally, favors a bigger government and higher taxes to pay for it, while conservatives advocate moving in the opposite direction: limited government and low taxes.

Let’s face it. The government since FDR’s New Deal has gotten bigger. LBJ instituted the Great Society. (I want my Game Show Government, no matter the cost!) By now conservatives would say Uncle Sam is morbidly obese. But liberalism is still winning, and liberals claim the moral high ground.

But do they have the right to it?

Not if we follow what the Bible recommends.

I have to admit from the outset that I get nervous about applying the economic and political specifics of the Bible to the modern era. But maybe we can draw general principles from the ancient theocracy of the Old Testament, which eventually evolved (or devolved) into a royal theocracy.

Of course, we don’t — nor should we — live in a theocracy. So let’s proceed with caution as we look at the Bible.

The main principle here in this article is one that goes wrong: from simplicity to complexity. We need to reverse the process.

From Simplicity

As for political power, Deuteronomy 17:16-20 reads:

16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself … he must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. 18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law … and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers[.]


So the king must not accumulate large amounts of gold and silver, he is to follow the law, and he must not consider himself better than his fellow citizens. Lean and simple.

As for the flow of the material resources, we don’t need to go into the details about taxes and tithes and offerings in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). And I’m certainly not advocating going back to the Old Testament specifics on those policies.

Instead, as we notice that the resources flowed to a centralized place (the tabernacle), we just need to look at the same principle of simplicity.

There are three tithes (a tithe is a tenth) commanded in the Torah. Numbers 18:20-32 provides the tithe for Levites and priests: “It is your wages for your work in the tent of meeting” (v. 31). Second, the ancient Hebrews could bring their tithes, either in kind or in silver, and buy what they needed after they got to the tabernacle and celebrated the harvest. They could have a feast on their own tithe in God’s presence (Deuteronomy 14:22-27). Third, every three years, they were to set a tenth of their produce for the Levites who lived in their towns but were not allowed to have land to farm. This tithe was also for the poor and helpless and foreigners (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).

Next, the ancient Hebrews were to “redeem” their lives because God redeemed them out of Egypt (Exodus 30:11-16). This yearly payment, a kind of tax, was to go to the temple. In Jesus’ day, the temple tax was two drachmas, or about two days’ wages of a day laborer (Matthew 17:24-27). That’s low. Incidentally, Jesus paid that tax.

Finally, the people were required to bring sacrificial animals to the tabernacle (Leviticus 1:1-7:21). The well-to-do brought more expensive animals, while the poor could bring in less expensive ones or even grain in some sacrifices (Leviticus 5:7-13). The priests and Levites could share in some of the offerings, as their provision for food.

We don’t need to calculate how much these tithes and tax and offerings would cost today (one tithe was eaten by the giver, so how do you calculate that?). These laws were given in an agrarian society, which followed the rhythms of the harvests and animal reproduction.

The main point is that the Torah, which sets the standard, was reasonable, requiring low “payments” flowing to the central tabernacle. Lean and simple.

To Complexity

Later in Israel’s history, the people rejected God as king and insisted on a human king. Samuel the prophet, leading them in this transition, forewarns them that future kings would become oppressive.

Samuel predicts:

11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” (1 Samuel 8:11-18)


So the king will take the harvests, turn the people into laborers, conscript them into the military, and make their own servants work for him. Becoming slaves of sorts to the centralized government, the people will cry out for relief.

We are far from the simplicity laid out in Deuteronomy 17:16-20.

Solomon fits the description of a king who broke the basic rules.

1 Kings 10:16-18, 21-25 says:

16 King Solomon made two hundred large shields of hammered gold; six hundred bekas of gold went into each shield. 17 He also made three hundred small shields of hammered gold, with three minas of gold in each shield. The king put them in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon.

18 Then the king made a great throne inlaid with ivory and overlaid with fine gold. … 21 All King Solomon’s goblets were gold, and all the household articles in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon were pure gold. Nothing was made of silver, because silver was considered of little value in Solomon’s days. 22 The king had a fleet of trading ships at sea along with the ships of Hiram. Once every three years it returned, carrying gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons.

23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. 24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. 25 Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift – articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.


One positive picture from this long passage is that Solomon traded with other nations, and Israel enjoyed general prosperity. Yet the resources flowed directly back to Jerusalem and the king.

The dominant impression from this passage is what can best be described (anachronistically) as a command economy. That is, the central government accumulates and wields a lot of power and wealth, all of which is concentrated in Jerusalem and managed by a burgeoning bureaucracy, described earlier in 1 Kings 9:22-23. And to pay for this bureaucracy, assessments and duties and taxes in kind and metals increased.

Monarchs do that sort of thing. Should we?

And so it came to pass the people revolted.

After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam ascended to the throne. Would he carry on his father’s oppressive policies or lighten the burdens? The people were crying out for relief, just as Samuel had predicted. Unfortunately, the new king tightened things up. 1 Kings 12:14 says, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier[.]”

Thus, Israel split into two kingdoms, north and south, because of high taxes, an oppressive bureaucracy, and centralized power. We are far from Deuteronomy 17:16-20.

The American Context

We don’t have to — nor should we — apply the particulars of the Old Testament. We’re not a theocracy or monarchy, and we shouldn’t bring back a tithe-tax.

Instead, it is obvious that we have followed the same destructive path away from liberating simplicity, and we’re rushing pell-mell toward oppressive complexity. We’re already there.

A command economy and high and countless taxes and a huge bureaucracy were not the aim of our Founders, who often scoured the Greek, Roman, and biblical authors for principles about what to do and what not to do.

A command economy barges into the private sector to dictate, for example, to segments of the auto industry, which now needs more billions, or to command mortgage companies and force them to lend to the poor, though the poor cannot afford to pay them back.

Therefore, an executive is misguided when he seeks higher taxes on job-creators, while the tax rates are high already compared to those in other nations; when he wields a lot of power on his own, rising above the law and bypassing Congress; and when he walks with his chin held higher than his “subjects,” as he gazes out over the horizon at no one in particular.

Today, many conservatives have reached the sane conclusion that a 15-plus-trillion-dollar debt is immoral. George Bush let himself get co-opted by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 2006, and that’s when things went downhill. However, things got worse in 2008 — and much, much worse for the next fourfiscal years — because the Obama administration added five trillion (a record) to the debt. A debt that matches or exceeds our national income (GDP) is oppressive and destroys prosperity and freedom.

Further, heavy-handed regulations that have grown decade by decade, all exerted by a central bureaucracy, are bad for everyone but the central planners. The irony? We have to pay for the overregulation of our freedoms.

The Constitution is small, while the U.S. Code has grown over the decades. Think of the tax code managed by the IRS, another huge bureaucracy. Who can penetrate its labyrinth and come out alive? The tax code has become oppressively complicated.

Do we need to discuss 2,000-plus-page ObamaCare, which has 21 ticking tax bombs built into it, creates a huge bureaucracy, and limits personal freedom? Not to mention we can’t afford already existing Medicare and Medicaid?


Generally, the left teaches that we need a big government to implement social and economic justice (as leftists define the terms). However, when the government grows, freedom is restricted. There’s an inverse relationship between a big and powerful government and individual freedom, by definition.

The Bible teaches the opposite of a morbidly obese government. Therefore, the left no longer occupies the high ground, and the right no longer has to cede it.

Proverbs 13:22 says: “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children.”

What kind of national inheritance are we leaving to the next generations? We’re leaving them nothing but oppressive burdens. How sad! How immoral!

You’ve heard of the Greatest Generation? Well, we’re the Irresponsible Generation.

We need to get back to a simple, lean, and reasonable government and low taxes.

That’s the moral high ground.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_biblical_case_for_limited_government_and_low_taxes.html#ixzz26GSi05bx

Had to repost this – almost lost it when making revisions in the dashboard.
Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment

February 6, 2012

Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment.

From http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/

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.

– The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sentence above has spawned in modern U.S. history some of the most heated and vitriolic debates on government authority.  The key point is whether government has authority to require background checks, waiting periods, and registration for a person to own and use firearms. Some cities have even outright banned the sale, use and possession of firearms, even handguns.  In some states, there are laws governing open and concealed carry laws.  But what did the Founding Fathers really mean when they wrote the Second Amendment?  And how should it be applied today given that knowledge of the Founders Original Intent? That will be the topic of discussion for today’s blog article.

First, we will focus on quotes from the Founders that clearly outlines the intent and purpose behind the second amendment.  Secondly, we will talk about the modern implications and authority of the different levels of government in respect to this amendment and its original intent.
The second amendment is traditionally broken up into two parts or clauses.  The first clause is the militia clause, that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

This clause is the lynchpin to most liberal arguments against private gun ownership and use.  Liberals argue that the right belongs to the militia to control the use of fire arms.  They view the police and military as the only legal owners of firearms.  What did the founders think of this? How did they define “militia?” And what was the purpose of the militia?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. – Richard Henry Lee
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. – James Madison

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…[T]he 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

No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state….  Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – “State Gazette,” Charleston, NV, 1788

We can see directly from these quotes that the militia is the complete body of men trained and capable of bearing arms.  This would lead us to believe that the right of bearing arms, while used in the militia, belongs to the individual trained to use those arms.  This is an individual right, not a collective right.  What was the purpose of the militia?

The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary.  The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary.  Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. – James Madison

What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. – Elbridge Gerry

I object to the power of Congress over the militia and to keep a standing army … The last resource of a free people is taken away; for Congress are to have the command of the Militia … Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all.  When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed. – John Smilie

The Militia is composed of free Citizens.  There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them. – Samuel Adams

In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part in the use of arms for the purposes of war.  Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction.  Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military character. – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America
The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. – John Adams

The design of the militia was to protect the local community from threats against itself and to enforce the laws.  We can see from these quotes that the citizens that were part of the militia were not “select” soldiers, as we see today in the national guard.  The men serving in the militia were everyday people brought together to defend their community.  This fighting force was large or controlled by the directly governor or the President of the United States to fight our wars.  The use of the militia or today’s national guard in fighting wars oversees is a clear violation of that standard.  As we can see by this quote of Richard Henry Lee at the ratification convention in Virginia: “The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

The militia is a protection against the dangers of a standing army, which could enforce tyranny through a barrel of a gun.  The reason behind this is that the full body of citizens, armed and trained in their use will always out number the standing army produced by then national government.  Take, for example, the following quotes

By the last returns to the Department of War the militia force of the several States may be estimated at 800,000 men – infantry, artillery, and cavalry. – James Monroe

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… – Noah Webster

The second clause of the Second Amendment focuses on the real individual right of the people protected and to not be infringed upon by the government.  It states: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

To form a militia people obviously need the ability to buy arms used to protect of themselves and their community.  So any laws that limit a person’s ability to possess and bear their weapons in public are in clear violation of this clause.  But if the above mentioned quotes are not enough evidence for the average reader let even more quotes from both our Founding Fathers and the courts of the U.S. be entered into the record as evidence of this correct interpretation.

The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.  These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. – Samuel Adams
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms.  This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions.” – Henry Campbell Black, “Handbook of American Constitutional Law,” 1895.
This [Second Amendment] 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. – Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (1803)

The prohibition is general.  No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.  Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature.  But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” 1829

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee, in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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 debate in the state ratifying conventions
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

The rifle is the weapon of democracy.  If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military.  The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws.  I intend to be among the outlaws.” – Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” 1979

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.  But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” – Bliss vs. Commonwealth (1822)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.  Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. – Nunn vs. State 1846

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary.  The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. – People vs. Zerillo (1922)
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. – State vs. Kerner (1921)

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.  He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. – Cockrum v. State (1859)
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.” – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” – Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed – Thomas Jefferson

What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – George Mason

Is any more evidence needed?  It is clearly seen in the words of the Founders of our nation, cases before the Supreme Court, and even from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law that the right to bear arms belongs to the people individually, not collectively.  If anyone can provide any quotes from the courts or the Founders that show this to be a collective right instead of individual, please share them.
What implications must now be taken into consideration after learning what the founder’s original intent on the second amendment?  First, no peaceable citizen shall be deprived of their right to buy, possess or carry firearms, either openly or concealed.  A person’s interpretation of “peaceable citizens” does give government authority for several legal actions.  There is no debate that the government has authority to require background checks before an individual purchases a firearm.  The purpose of that background check would be to ensure that the person has no outstanding warrants or felony convictions.  The citizen who is guilty of such a crime may legally be denied their right to own a firearm until they are proven “peaceable” by regulations authorized by the state.

Secondly, gun registration laws provide a clear and unprecedented danger to peaceable citizens, without any benefit for the general welfare of all other citizens.  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the danger of gun registration laws became crystal clear.  The police would go into neighborhoods and forcibly confiscate the firearms from law-abiding citizens, using the gun registration records.  This is in clear violation of a person’s fourth and fifth amendment rights.  They confiscated property without probable cause, and confiscated property without providing the citizen due process.  After that the gangs and other criminals would flock into those areas and use their illegal guns to take what they wanted.  The law-abiding citizens people were defenseless.  This also happened under the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia. The registration lists allowed the government to isolate and confiscate the arms owned by law-abiding citizens, thereby making them easier to control.  The other part of this implication is that gun registration laws have had little or no effect on the solving of crimes.  Guns used in criminal acts are rarely traced back to the own through gun registration records; so they serves no real purpose other than isolating and identifying the law-abiding citizens who own guns.

During the research for this article, there was an interesting part of the amendment that was found in the original drafts of what would become the second amendment, but excluded in the final text.  In the original drafts of the second amendment, debated before the House of Representatives and Senate, included a clause that allowed for conscientious objectors excused from service in the militia.  In the historical context this restriction on government make sense.  The religious sect known as Quakers, were a well-known group of people in the states during our colonial and found periods.  They were strictly pacifist and did not volunteer for any war.  This allowed them to stay true to their faith and kept government from violating their right to freedom of religion and conscious.  A U.S. hero in World War I, Sergeant Alvin York, was a Quaker and tried to get out of the draft by claiming conscientious objector status.  It was obviously denied, but one may argue that the founders intended to allow this excuse from military service.

The original intent of the Founders on this topic of the Constitution is clear for everyone to see.  When the federal, states, or local governments pass laws that prevent peaceable citizens from owning firearms are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Some of you would say that the Founders could not foresee a day when we would have of rapid fire weapons, so the second amendment requires reinterpreted.  But we can see in the original intent that the specific type of weapon is not a concern when defending the right of the people to defend themselves.  If you can regulate automatic weapons, what is to stop government from then regulating swords, knives and other “arms.”  The meaning of the terms is clearly defined in the words of the Founders.  This is the case for every questionable term that Constitutional modernists and activists think need should be reinterpreted for our modern progressive era.  And that is the key behind the idea of original intent.

It is understandable that government must change with the times, but it cannot change not beyond the clearly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution.  The words of the Constitution are clearly defined and understood if you do your due diligence and research the meaning behind the phrases when written. Both strict and liberal constructionists must do this research because both are bound to the origins of these phrases and clauses written 235 years ago.  Both theories are necessary and proper for understanding the Constitution and the authority given in the document.  But we can only completely understand that authority when we know and understand granted authority by viewing what the Founders meant when they wrote the document.
Related articles

From YT; I love this video: Note – Mr. Nugent pulls no punches; the term “bastard” is used, and if you’d rather be martyred by a criminal, than use deadly force to defend your life, and your loved ones, you’re invited to not view this point blank, direct defense of the Second Amendment.


What others see plainly, we often ignore.
I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, “Is Castro a good guy or bad?”
Dad said, “He couldn’t tell!!”
This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana at the time. Dad was in the Army there. Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question! Ike was president.
This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960’s. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to bring a suitcase…and $100 when they fled Castro’s newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide…while celebrating the birth of our beloved America…on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington .
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. “You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist”.
We sat stunned. He continued, “Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn’t sound like a radical.”
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, “You mean just like Barack Obama?”
He responded; “Yes, just like Barack Obama.”
He continued, “We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied.”
I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own…it is now our property also, and…you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you.”
The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office…they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it.. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society…would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro’s Cuba in the early 1960’s.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice…because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets…without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight…only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled…by the Attorney General.
The U.S. Borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. Act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers….while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed…and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration…entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!! Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book…a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together…and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law…end now!! And yes, it can happen here.

Patriot Action Network
“We are the Tea Party”

Amazing Story a must read…. Man arrested, sentenced to 30 days and $1,500.00 fines for storing WATER

A Oregon man was recently arrested, convicted and given a 30 day jail sentenced and over $1,500.00 in fines for storing…. wait for it….. RAINWATER… on his own property. Apparently in Oregon all water belongs to.. you guessed it.. THE STATE.
Apparently storing rainwater and snow melt on your own property for your personal use is against Oregon’s law.
If you need a better example of Socialism gone wild you could not find it.
This law was enacted in 1925 by a Progressive Governor and Legislature to “help” all people have access to “Public” resources and the personal use by storing or blocking a State resource is therefore illegal.
So rain falling from the sky belongs to the State and you may not hinder or impede it’s free flow off your property.
Welcome to our FUTURE.
And a comment from a PAN member:
Comment by Paul M. Clements53 minutes ago

Here’s the link for comments on the Dep’t of Agriculture/Forest Service plot to steal our water rights.


Only In America Top 10 List

From a Patriot, and Veteran friend. DON’T quibble about maybe being a bit off in his percentages!

Monday, July 16, 2012 3:01 PM

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $40,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.9) Only in America could people claim that the government still Discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black, while 12% of the population is black.

8) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible For our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel, who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax dodgers who are in favor of higher Taxes.

7) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

6) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American Citizens.

5) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

4) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

3) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

2) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

S#!@ lobbyists say

I don’t know how this group got my e- address; however, while this is a donation request, I must say that our Gov’t ought not to be for sale to the highest bidder.

United Republic

Posted on March 15, 2012

‘I’m About to Earmark This Cake for My Mouth’

S#@* lobbyists say

There are 12,200 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. right now. And they earn $3.3 billion each year influencing Congress – mostly by way of talking with a silver tongue.

 Our friends at SofaPundit.com, Ryan and Sean Kleier, were incensed by the undue role lobbyists have over democracy, so they applied for a Fund for the Republic grant and got one. We liked their previous work so much that we asked them to make a video about the S#!@ lobbyists say to get their way in Washington.

Yeah, yeah, we know the S#!@ people say trend is SOOOO last month… but Sean & Ryan’s work is just too good not to share.

For more ridiculous things REAL lobbyist say, click here.


National Director
One Nation Under Socialism – Jon McNaughton
Added by Darla Dawald, National Director on March 21, 2012 at 4:04am


I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, And not to an ideology, which can never stand, One nation under socialism, divisive, With no liberty or justice for anyone.”

This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?

McNaughton’s Answers to Questions Regarding This Painting:
Why the title “One Nation Under Socialism?”
Our federal government has been moving in the direction of socialism for over one hundred years. Many presidents and politicians have compromised the Constitution as we have given away our freedoms under the guise of entitlements and government intervention. When the people are willing to sacrifice the next generation for their current lifestyles and allow the federal government to have all the power for an illusory mess of pottage—you have chosen One Nation Under Socialism.

What do you mean by an ideology, which can never stand?
I will not support an ideology, which will lead to the destruction of America. In the history of the world, never has there been a recorded example where Socialism has led to the betterment of the human condition or improved the liberty of the people. I know there are varying degrees and definitions of “socialism.” Even the European model of Democratic Socialism has proven to be a dismal failure. Do you want to see our country become like Greece, Italy, Portugal, or even Great Britain?

What do you mean by “divisive, with no liberty or justice for anyone?”
Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health care system, given bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the “less rich.” The Constitution never guaranteed equal things—only equal rights and justice. In America we should be FREE TO SUCCEED and FREE TO FAIL!

At this very moment our Constitution is literally going up in flames. What will you do to preserve the Constitution and save America?

Why Socialism Failed …




Inspired by reading about fellow blogger  http://chiefofleast.com/

Matthew 25

1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Why, might you ask, am I posting this? When we ought to be most awake, the church has fallen asleep. When we ought to be most active, we find many backsliden, weak, compromising, and scoffers. An amoral public has bred immoral leadership.

People wonder why the United States is not mentioned in prophecy; I have given my opinion that -simply put- “You can’t have a free country, and a one world government.” We have fallen far and fast, from the most powerful force to emerge from the cataclysm known as WWII, to a groveling, amoral, corrupt, weak cistern.   HOLD YOUR VOTES!

It has been said that we’re an  “80% Christian” nation … Let that sink in for a moment.

What percentage would you guess were Christian in 1946? (rhetorical question) Would there even be a second’s thought that -other than Judiasm- we all ascribed to the Author and finisher of our faith and his father, who is so sacred to Jews, that his name can’t be written out except as “G-d”?  We were far from  perfect, yet we were a beacon of light to the rest of the world; why else would France have  bestowed on us the symbol known today as the Statue of Liberty?  That we have allowed Islam to take root knowing their attitude that “all infidels are to be converted, or killed” is insanity.

This year, the NDAA in particular, and many other acts, in violation of the Constitution; have brought us to the brink of being the police state that the German republic became in 1932.  The National Socialist German Workers’ Party,    (Nazi stands for “Nationalsozialist“) implemented gun control, thereby being able to usurp control by knowing exactly who owned guns, and how many.

Combine this with the Globalist agenda by the U.N. and you have the prescription for a pivitol change in the course of history. Given that all our efforts to get rid of Obama succeed, the destruction already done to the Constitution and our freedoms may be irreversible.  Scripture admonishes us to be watchful.  

1 Peter 5:8-11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

8Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

9Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world.

10But the God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect you, and confirm you, and establish you.

11To him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:2-4  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

2Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

3For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:

4And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

Apostacy, one of the last requirements prior to God the Father informing His son “it’s time” is now apparent, not just isolated incidents.

I hope Iran’s high  council stays its hand; but I fear that despite international outcry, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s fate might be sealed.

In my humble opinion, we have awaken too late.  Those of us who own guns may soon see the day of becoming the first targets of a government made all too powerful by complacency and neglect.  The mechanism that accelerates prophecy, the “sorrows” in Matthew, over the top;  thus catapulting the mystery man -a religious/political figure- who will become  the Antichrist to power. 

Ephesians 6:10-13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

10Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power.

11Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.

12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

13Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.



%d bloggers like this: