Senate Standing Guard

/in /by

Congress has possibly the lowest approval rating in history, even lower than possibly the worst President in history. Perhaps it is because of the apparent disconnect from reality that becomes obvious when listening to some of them. In a recent email to one of my radio show listeners, Marco Rubio, a Senator who is alleged to really “get it” and is a “rising star” in the GOP, made the following statement:

“I take my role as a U.S. Senator very seriously and I will continue to provide important oversight of these government agencies. Should anyone attempt to restrict our freedom or liberty, I will hold them accountable. Furthermore, I will continue to support and defend the principles and liberties in the U.S. Constitution.”

Seriously? “CONTINUE to provide and important oversight”?? When and where is that happening from Congress, Mr. Rubio? “Should anyone attempt to restrict our freedom or liberty”?!!? Is Mr. Rubio asserting that it hasn’t happened yet, but when it does we should rest assured that he will be RIGHT THERE supporting and defending the Constitution? FYI, it’s happening every day. Someone needs to pump some fresh air in Washington DC because I am seeing significant signs of asphyxiational delusion displayed by the majority of its residents.

Just in case some Senators are unclear about what might restrict our freedom or liberty, here are just a few things going on that could use some oversight and accountability:

1. Obamacare is a massive tool to restrict our freedom and liberty. It is a mandate that requires citizens to purchase the healthcare the government deems appropriate and penalizes anyone from working outside the confines of government control. It gives the federal government the power to not only mandate healthcare but creates a “significant governmental interest” in matters of our health giving the government potential control over every aspect of our lives. A small case in point is the measure popularly known as the “Medicine Cabinet Tax,” contained in pages 1,957 to 1,959 of a law that runs more than 2,400 pages. This provision FORBIDS AMERICANS from using their health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement account (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase nonprescription medicines. (

Sunshine State News, Eric Guinta)—Did you hear that Mr. Rubio…the Federal Government is FORBIDDING AMERICANS from using their own money to buy Tylenol! Surely THAT is a restriction on our freedom or liberty…Where is the oversight?

2. In the midst of “government shut down” over budget issues, the Obama administration is set to hire TENS OF THOUSANDS of health care professionals, union workers and community activists (ACORN? Planned Parenthood?) as “navigators” to help Americans choose Obamacare options. Their starting pay as of Oct. 1 will be anywhere from $20 to $48 an HOUR, according to new regulations issued Wednesday. (The Examiner, Paul Bedard) What will these “navigators” do? They will be translating Obamacare into foreign languages to encourage the use of Obamacare by non-English speaking people. Multilingual statism, beautiful! Is this an example of that oversight Mr. Rubio mentioned?

3. The Senate Budget Committee just recently voted to CONTINUE working with Mexican government to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps (a program started by George W.). Exporting government dependency, fantastic! That gives new meaning to the phrase “Made In America.” Apparently our own government isn’t doing enough to spend us into oblivion, we will now have the assistance of Mexico in enslaving our children in debt and national bankruptcy. The PARTNERSHIP, alone, will cost us MILLIONS, not to mention the cost of the Food Stamps (FoxNews.com) (Daily Caller, Caroline May) Senate oversight in the works, perhaps? No, this is probably just “immigration reform,” a.k.a. Democrat voter drive.

4. Congress “quietly” passes the Farmer Assurance Provision. Apparently, throwing the farmers’ legal recourse against negligent corporations into the hands of the FDA. What is the justification for this unconstitutional support of special interest? Law suits are costing the FDA too much money. (multiple media sources) Perhaps this is actually what oversight means… making sure the special interest and lobbyist groups are protected!

5. Immigration “reform” is in the works, being pushed through by the unconstitutional establishment of the “thugs of 8”. The last clause of Article 5 of the Constitution requires “equal suffrage” in the Senate for ALL senators…not just 8! Who have the thugs of 8 “hired” to write their “immigration reform”? The AFL-CIO. AMAZING degree of oversight…again ensuring that the lobbyists get their way. (ABC News, Arlette Saenz) Not only that but the GOP has issued a statement that a loophole in this program will allow for TRILLIONS of dollars of welfare assistance to be given to illegal aliens…and the absurdity continues. (Breitbart, Matthew Boyle)

6. “Law enforcement intelligence-processing fusion centers” admit to spying on US Citizens…but don’t worry! They are only spying on “groups that are anti-government.” Our local law enforcement PARTNERING with DHS to spy on our own citizens. Our 4th Amendment is being openly and transparently shredded and WHERE is that defense of our Constitution that
Mr. Rubio was talking about?…crickets. (RT.com)

7. Joe Biden says on a conference call to Mayors Against Guns: “And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.” Obama said in his last State of the Union Address, “if Congress won’t act soon… I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future.” The Executive branch has openly and transparently DEFIED its constitutional limitation, taking more and more power from Congress, destroying the Constitution its tyrannical wake…Again I ask, where is the oversight?

8. Because Washington claims to be having budget problems…our defense budget is being cut. Our Marines are being told to conserve bullets and gas. (WND, Garth Kant) The Blue Angels were just grounded because of budget constraints. (CNN, GejJones) Civilian DOD employees are being furloughed, losing 14 day’s pay. (US DOD) The White House has canceled tours, even to our school kids in spite of promises otherwise. (Fox News, Chad Pergram)

*MEANWHILE* back in Washington…Our government sends $250 Million to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (The Blaze, Madeleine Morgenstern)…The White House throws a STAR STUDDED concert, inviting Al Green, Ben Harper, Queen Latifah, Cyndi Lauper and Justin Timberlake, among many others (FoxNews.com)… Obama FAMILY finds the cash to take lavish vacations, bought and paid for by the tax-payers (The Alexandrian, Lee Hernley)…Biden spends over $585,000 for ONE NIGHT in a Hotel in Paris, spending almost $1million in total tax-payer dollars for that trip (The Huffington Post, Ryan Grenoble)

Is THIS what our Congress considers oversight? Is this what our Congress considers defending our Constitution, our Freedom, our Liberty? Every day in DC seems like April Fools meets Groundhog Day. I am not quite sure what some of these Senators are looking at, but it’d be easier to see Russia from my backyard than see oversight and Constitutional defense in Congress.

Second Amendment and UN Arms Treaty

/in /by

The Second Amendment was not established on a whim. Our founders incorporated the second amendment based upon generations of experience fighting tyranny. The drafters’ intent is easily discovered by simply going to their writings and their history. What we discover from the founders’ writings is that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or skeet shooting. (The fact that the founders wrote down what they intended the Constitution to mean is somehow lost on masses of uninformed Americans.) Sadly, our understanding of the right to bear arms has already moved so far from where our founders intended. If we cannot convince Americans of its true purpose, we will be looking at a future in which we are completely powerless against the forces of oppression and enslavement. Furthermore, we cannot allow our elected employees to have any perspective other than the one which is indicated by the Constitution and explained by its framers.

The framers’ history is a history of the rise and fall of tyrants. Their history is a history of the pursuit of Liberty and the progressive securing of greater and greater protections for that Liberty. Our founders came to this country with their own Bill of Rights. This document was the very basis for their protest against King George III. Not surprisingly this document looks strikingly like the Declaration of Independence. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 lists among its grievances against James II that he was disarming the people while the government remained armed and that he employed standing armies illegally. So when George III started tyrannizing them with the very oppressions that their fathers had suffered, they understood that he was violating a fundamentally protected right.

Sam Adams explained that every colonist had the inherent right to certain things under the laws of nature.

“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.”

Fundamental to the rights of life, liberty and property are the right to defend them. Yet as we speak our current government is attempting to legislate this right to defend our rights and they are collaborating with the likes of China and Russia. From whom did our founders feel the greatest threat? From what “attacker” is the Second Amendment intended to protect us? They had in mind the very threat we see today with the UN Gun treaty. They were placing in the hands of the people the means to deny a government trading our sovereignty for ‘global negotiations.’ They wanted to ‘arm’ us with the truth of our liberty and the duty we have to defend it, not just for ourselves, but for our posterity!

“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.”

Nearly every argument against the right to bear arms centers on a misrepresentation of the first four words; “a well regulated militia.” What did our founders think when they penned those four words?

George Mason, while addressing the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1778 asked the question: “who are the militia?”

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia?”

In asking this question, Mason gives a grave warning. He warns it is the enemy within (governor of Pennsylvania in his case) that desires to enslave the people. He also warns that this enemy will not suddenly show up at our door demanding our firearms. The enemy will wait until the people have been worn down, perhaps regulated, to the point that they no longer WANT to be bother owning firearms. I cannot imagine a better example of the government attempting to make us “sink gradually” that the enormous effort required of a LAW ABIDING citizen to purchase a firearm. When it takes hour and forty-five minutes of paperwork and background checks to purchase a one shot .22 caliber rifle, how can this be justified? Our founders demanded in the second amendment that our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. These regulations are an infringement and they are designed to eliminate gun owners NOT keep the people safe. It is an effort to destroy Liberty!

Mason did not end his argument with a question, but answered it with a simplicity that is astounding. He explains:

“They (the militia) consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”

Mason knew the militia was every person, “all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” He feared without the incorporation of the second amendment the people would forget that fact and allow the government to disarm them. Noah Webster shared Mason’s concerns. Webster not only explains to us WHO a militia is, but who it is NOT and the PURPOSE for having this militia.

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

 

Noah Webster explains that unless we want to be like every other kingdom in Europe, with a disarmed people and a standing army at their door, the WHOLE BODY of the people must remained armed! The purpose of an armed people, Webster explains, is to keep the federal government from enforcing unjust laws. Can you imagine someone printing that statement in an op-ed today? Oops, I guess I just did. Webster continues by explaining that the “well regulated militia” is the whole body of the people and NOT “a military force, at the command of Congress.”

“A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

There you have it, a clear line of demarcation.

Richard Henry Lee (the man who proposed the initial amendment to declare independence from Great Britain, and could be rightly regarded as the Father of America) also wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, to elaborate on what our founders knew to be true about the need to bear arms.

 “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”

Wow, imagine that, the purpose of the WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE being armed is to preserve liberty, not for the purposes of hunting and skeet shooting. In fact, Lee said it is ESSENTIAL that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS possess arms. That little word “always” really throws a wrench in the works in believing the government has the right to impose conceal and carry permits on the people. That is NOT something our founders would have accepted.

Lee continues with his explanation to help us understand who the well regulated militia is NOT:

 “nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. 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.”

We must now be the “true republicans” dedicated to carefully guarding against the government forcing us to believe they are the only ones to own guns. We must do as Lee said and help everyone to always possess arms and we must train our children to do so as well. This will not increase gun related deaths it will decrease them. The facts support this assertion and the emotion of the gun haters cannot handle that.

Finally, let us look to Patrick Henry. Henry was arguing against Edmond Pendleton who opposed the Bill of Rights and the incorporation of the second amendment. Pendleton declared there was no need to codify such a right, because if the Senators started to impose unjust laws, the people could simply recall them. This was a reasonable assertion at the time, because prior to the ratification of the seventeenth amendment in 1913 the people had that power. However, Henry was not satisfied with this argument and felt it an inadequate protection of the liberties inherent to men.

 “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.”

Patrick Henry was very passionate about this right and the record reflects that Henry then “sneered at Pendleton” and said,

 “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.”

So you see, it’s undeniable what our founders intended. “A well regulated militia being necessary to secure a free state” is the whole body of the people always possessing arms to secure liberty, to prevent a standing army in times of peace, and to prevent the federal government from enforcing unjust laws—free from government regulations that would cause them to be disarmed over time.

That is why I say, we do not have a RIGHT to bear arms, we have a DUTY to bear arms. We have a duty to prevent the gradual sinking of the people by an effort to disarm them. We have a duty to ensure that the federal government does not try to rule us with a standing army. We have a duty to prevent the federal government from imposing unjust laws by the sword. It is this duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity, to secure the blessings of liberty. According to George Mason, Noah Webster, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, the remaining founders and an entire nation of people 225 years ago, keeping that promise, fulfilling that duty, requires that we bear arms.

Do not fail our children. Do not fail liberty. Educate everyone that you know that any law that infringes upon our right to bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Inform Congress that the UN Gun Treaty is unconstitutional and WE WILL NOT COMPLY. Let Congress know if they sign the UN Gun Treaty, if they fail the second amendment, they will fail their oath of office, and they are enemies of liberty and we WILL “carefully guard against” them. We the people are going to keep our commitment to our children; WE are going to put Liberty First, either with them or without them! We will not be disarmed and we will NOT allow a tyranny to be passed down to our children. We will NOT stand idly by while those we elect destroy our Liberty and sell our children into slavery!

Scalia Gives Life To Founders' Fears.

/in /by

Justice Scalia’s opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (Arizona voter ID laws) is a misapplication of constitutional principles and the framers’ intent and results in the further dissolution of State sovereignty. Ironically, the framers actually predicted Scalia’s conclusion and feared its consequences. There are three matters that must be understood in this case:

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires a state to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. (emphasis added)

Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Election Clause) permits Congress to make a law or alter State voting regulations regarding the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Voter Qualification Clause) establishes that the power rests within the States to identify the qualifications of voters within that State.

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Scalia asserts that since the Election Clause permits the Congress to “override” State law in regard to the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections, then the NVRA’s requirement to “accept and use” a uniform federal form as a mandate upon the States prevents them from making any voter qualifications in addition to the federal form. This “logic” creates a contradiction within the Constitution. Since Arizona has the constitutionally established power to define voter qualification, but according to Scalia, no power to require proof of compliance with these qualifications, they in reality, have no power at all. Scalia has functionally told the States that their power to define a voter is subject to federal regulation. This is NOT what the framers of this nation intended. James Madison speaks to this very issue:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52

There was much opposition and debate over the inclusion of the Election Clause within the Constitution. The problem the framers had, the same issue in this case, was the vagueness of the words “time, place, and manner.” The framers feared that someday the central government would use this phrase to transfer power over the election process from the States to itself. Listen to the arguments made against this provision from the North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788:

Mr. Spencer: These words are so vague and uncertain, that it must ultimately destroy the whole liberty of the United States. It strikes at the very existence of the states, and supersedes the necessity of having them at all.

Mr. Bloodworth: This Constitution, if adopted in its present mode, must end in the subversion of our liberties…We know that there is a corruption in human nature. Without circumspection and carefulness, we shall throw away our liberties. Why is this general expression used on this great occasion? Why not use expressions that were clear and unequivocal?

Mr. Maclaine: The clause enables Congress to alter such regulations as the states shall have made with respect to elections.

Ironically, Scalia’s transfer of power to the federal government was the very thing feared by those who opposed this clause.

Scalia tries to invoke Alexander Hamilton’s words from Federalist No. 59 as a means to support his position: “[E]very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation…” What Scalia fails to do is openly convey the context in which Hamilton was making that statement. Without this context, one might assert that Hamilton believed that the central government possesses an “inherent right to self-preservation.” Hamilton did not believe that, nor did any of those recorded during the history of the Constitutional conventions.

Hamilton makes no argument that the central government is superior to the States. When Hamilton said the government should have a means to preserve itself, he was trying to ease the fears of those who asserted the Election Clause was dangerous to that end. Hamilton knew the government they created was one in which the States held most of the power and the central government had very little power. He believed he was giving the central government an aid to survive in the face of such great State power. A more complete reading of Hamilton’s reasoning in Federalist No. 59, 60 and 61 shows that Hamilton did not approve of the central government “swallowing up” the states, he just thought it would never be allowed to happen. He called the idea, the product of a wildly fanciful imagination and highly improbable. Hamilton believed that if the central government attempted to do what Scalia has granted them the power to do, there would be extreme consequences from the people.

“so improper a spirit…could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people,–headed and directed by the state governments…so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and so enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government; without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton did not believe such an usurpation could be achieved without military force:

“I imagine, it will hardly be pretended, that they could ever hope to carry such an enterprise into execution, without the aid of a military force sufficient to subdue, the resistance of the great body of the people…. Would they not fear that citizens not less tenacious than conscious of their rights would flock from the remotest extremes of their respective states to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants, and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people?” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton’s disbelief in the ability of the central government to assume this tyrannical power which Scalia has asserted was not unique.

“The possible abuse here complained of never can happen as long as the people of the United States are virtuous. As long as they continue to have sentiments of freedom and independence, should the Congress be wicked enough to harbor so absurd an idea as this objection supposes, the people will defeat their attempt by choosing other representatives, who will alter the law.” Mr. Nichols Virginia Ratifying Debates June 14, 1788.

“Nothing would support government, in such a case as that, but military coercion. Armies would be necessary in different parts of the United States. The expense which they would cost, and the burdens which they would render necessary to be laid upon the people, would be ruinous. I know of no way that is likely to produce the happiness of the people, but to preserve, as far as possible, the existence of the several states, so that they shall not be swallowed up.” Mr. Spencer North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788

“If the Congress make laws inconsistent with the Constitution, independent judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them. A universal resistance will ensue. In some countries, the arbitrary disposition of rulers may enable them to overturn the liberties of the people; but in a country like this, where every man is his own master, and where almost every man is a freeholder, and has the right of election, the violations of a constitution will not be passively permitted. Can it be supposed that in such a country the rights of suffrage will be tamely surrendered?” Mr. Steele North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788.

This is obviously a much more important case, than deciphering the meanings of words. Even the framers of the Constitution, seeing the problems with vagueness of words, knew this was not just an issue of the proper application of terms, but a matter between liberty and tyranny. Unfortunately, in the framer’s perspective, Justice Scalia has chosen tyranny. A more disturbing question arises Hamilton’s argument, “Where are the citizens Hamilton describes who would only be subdued in this manner by the power of an army?”

Peace on Earth? Good Will Toward Men?

/in , /by

Listening to the news, watching the headlines has become a requirement for my current ministry. But I have come to realize that a daily diet of this is hazardous to my health. This never ending caustic supply of drama and crisis is not healthy for the body or the soul. IT makes me want to cry out, “Peace on Earth? Good will toward men? Where is it!”

There have been many in this battle for Liberty who have succumbed to the overwhelming negativity of the media invented reality, leaving behind the battle to search for the “normal life.” We must guard against this intrusion and obstruction to the defense of Liberty. I am convinced the ever-continuing crisis after crisis is purposed to dishearten the patriot and discourage the fight. So what is the solution? We must learn to find our hope and center ourselves on the true reality, not the one contrived by those receiving their marching orders from Alinsky, Cloward and Piven. We must know that just as we have inherited the Liberty we enjoy, we have also inherited the enemies of Liberty. We must pick up the mantle of those that came before us and learn from their courage and resolve. Will we be sunshine patriots or true victors of Liberty?

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could have the greatest nation the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with a courage and a hope that would build the greatest nation in the world. Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. In a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley, in 1774, lies the key to the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

You see, the battle for Liberty is a battle for the gifts of God. Thomas Jefferson said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

For Patrick Henry, courage not only came from knowing the history that “guided his feet” or fighting with the “vigilant, active, and the brave,” but also knowing they served a “just God who presides over the destinies of nations” and when standing for Liberty, a gift from God, they could not fail.

He declared,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the inititial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

If we wish to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God, this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

This is not yet the darkest hour experienced by our nation by far. We still live in the greatest nation in the world. A nation built upon the principles of Liberty. The principles that cry all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A nation where all men have equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other nation can make that claim. No other people have that birth right. But with that gift comes great responsibility to secure that Liberty for generations to come. We cannot lose hope. We cannot let Liberty slip. Because, it is not our hope, it is not our Liberty, it is the hope and Liberty of ages and millions yet unborn. We must reacquaint ourselves with the lamp of experience that gives us the courage to see a guaranteed victory. But we must also reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that gift of Liberty and the provider of the hope of victory.

In one of the darkest moments of our history, a story is told of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Henry’s wife had been tragically and fatally burned in June of 1861. Henry, himself, was badly burned trying to put out the fire that consumed his beloved wife. He was so consumed by grief over the loss of his wife, at Christmas he wrote in his journal, “How inexpressibly sad are all holidays.” One year later, Henry wrote, “A merry Christmas’ say the children, but that is no more for me.” That following year, Henry learns that his oldest son was severely wounded in the Civil War after a bullet passed under his should blades damaging his spine. His journal was blank on Christmas on 1864. However, on Christmas day, 1865, Henry penned the words to “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”. During one of the darkest times our nation has ever known, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow found his hope;

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

“For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Henry awoke from his despair and realized that God is not dead and is still the Giver of peace and hope. He knew that God promises victory to those who trust in Christ and will stand for God’s gifts. He was able to express that hope in the phrase, “God is not dead; nor does he sleep! The Wrong shall fail; the Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!” That same promise belongs to us, the greatest nation this world has ever known. We simply must place our trust in the right place. My hope is not in Congress. My hope is not in any man or his government. In this holy season, let us not forget that through the shed blood of Christ, whether the victory is on the battle field or through the gates of Heaven, we are winners either way. This is the REAL HOPE; a hope that can change the world.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Patriot or Politician?

/in /by

I was recently called uncivil. What was my uncivil behavior? I called a lie a lie in the face of a liar. If that is uncivil behavior, then I suppose I have been classified. However, I believe we have been given a magnificent heritage. Men and women have lived their lives in great sacrifice and given their last breath to secure a nation for our children. This nation they built was to be a beacon of hope to the world: A light of Liberty and a shining example for future generations. The foundation of that hope and Liberty is the Constitution of the United States. We have too long stood silent over the denigration of their sacrifice.

When people who wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves representatives speak lies and operate to destroy and ignore the Constitution of the United States they spit on that sacrifice. Is this behavior demanding of civil response? Would you allow someone to stand in front of George Washington, Sam Adams, or Abigail Adams and slap them in the face with no recourse? Yet day by day worse occurs. Our children are brain washed, our people are deprived of their God given rights, and our government is the chief perpetrator and violator! There is no distinction between political parties any longer. The only distinction that remains is those who support truth, Liberty, and the Republic by standing firmly in defense of the Constitution and those who will not. You classify yourself by your actions.

I have been called apocalyptic. Perhaps I should not shun that title because if you cannot see the day of reckoning coming, you are dead to this world. We have a Supreme Court Justice who has told her own nation and the entire world that the Constitution is a piece of garbage. The Constitution is the very document that stands between our Liberty and Oppression and a guardian of that document has called it trash. And what has been the response of the nation? Silence. Oh sure there have been a few of us that have been outraged, but what about our representatives? James Madison gave them the charge of being the sure guardians of our Liberty; where is their outrage? We have a Department of Justice that is busy arming our enemies to enable them to disarm the people. They have allowed the murder of our people on foreign soil without any apology or consequence. When questioned by Congress, they refuse to answer every question, evade responsibility and thumb their noses at the very authority our Constitution places over them. Do you not understand that when the Executive Branch refuses to submit to Congress, they are really refusing to submit to YOU? What has been Congress’s response to all of this? They have busied themselves with hearings, investigations and speeches, but no action, no consequences. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors to keep the people pacified while they seek and destroy the very foundation of our Republic. When will enough be enough? When will we, the possessors of our Liberty, by the Grace of God himself have the courage to stand in the face of liars and call them out for their lies?

Perhaps you are still hoping to get the pet piece of legislation passed? Maybe you are hoping to gain the favor of your paid employee to achieve some greater good? What is the price of your voice? Nay, what is the price of your child’s life? Do you moderate yourself for political favor? Do you compromise yourself for influence? Do you actually believe that your “civil” behavior is being rewarded by the pusillanimous in political office? You kid yourself. They shake your hand and give you a sweet smile, promising you only what they themselves want to accomplish. When you leave the office they laugh at you and mock you. They view you as weak, useful idiots that support their corruption and guarantee them a future full of greed and deceit. You have allowed this nation, with your behavior, to be betrayed by a kiss and 30 pieces of silver.

How much longer will allow this destruction to continue without challenge? I am convicted by the words of John Adams.

“Posterity! You will never know how much it costs the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took pains to preserve it.”

I will not make excuses for my behavior because there is NO EXCUSE to be made for standing for what is right and for the gifts that God has given me. I will not apologize for calling a liar a liar. Who was that liar? A member of the Florida Senate. OH MY, the crowd gasps, she has just called a “sitting senator” and liar! Blasphemy! May I use a word or two in response? Hypocrite…Coward. A Senator is someone who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the oath that our framers took when they pledged life, fortune, and sacred honor to give us the gift of this nation. That is the price John Adams refers to when he reminds us of how much it cost to secure the Blessings of Liberty. That means you stand with the Constitution in the face of opposition, in the face of tyranny, in the face of ALL who even suggest trampling that jewel. It is not open for compromise; it is not open for irreverent change. Those who will compromise, criticize, or scorn the principles of Liberty are not keeping their oath. They do not deserve the title of senator, representative, or any other title bestowed by the power of the people through the Constitution they hate so much. The only titles they deserve are enemy of the Constitution and traitors!

Since those we have hired to protect and defend the Constitution are now refusing to do so, I will take that charge. Those of you who wish to apologize for my behavior; No thank you. You classify yourself by your behavior; I don’t need you to apologize for mine. Save those apologies, you are going to need them when you have to answer to future generations and explain to them how little their liberty meant to you and how easily you were bought. I call myself a Christian, not because I go to church, but because I have given my life to Christ. I call myself an American Patriot, not because I attend a tea party meeting, but because I have given my life to protect and defend the principles of Liberty that make this nation great. I stand firmly on the Constitution. I give no apologies, I give no excuses. The stand I take is an old one, I claim over 700 years of sacrifice for Liberty. I will not defend my actions for answering the charge to “secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” I don’t need to defend my actions. If calling out a liar and a traitor is uncivil, then uncivil I will remain. Only those who will not stand or those dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution need to defend their actions.

Let us be clear. I will not cower, capitulate, or comply. Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, Elizabeth Adams, Mercy Otis Warren all deserve my life, fortune, and sacred honor. How will you classify yourself? Are you a Patriot or are you a politician?

 

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Sam Adams

FL Sheriff Arrested by Governor Scott For Defending Right to Bear Arms

/in /by

This week Liberty County Florida Sheriff, Nick Finch was arrested by Governor Rick Scott for standing in defense of the Constitution and honoring his oath of office.  Sheriff Finch believes the Second Amendment means what it says, our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  What Sheriff Finch did was well within his authority and in full compliance with the rules and regulations for records retention and destruction.  What Sheriff Finch did was stand in the gap where the government is trying to erode your Liberty.

Sheriff Finch made the decision to not pursue a charge against Floyd Parish; well within the authority of the Sheriff to do.  Upon making that decision, Sheriff Finch removed Parish’s file from the records and removed his name from the jail log.  Well within his authority; The General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners outlines this authority.

ARREST RECORDS: OFFENDER INFORMATION Item #32 

This record series documents each adult and juvenile arrested. The records provide such information as complete name; alias or nickname; residence; sex; age; date of birth; place of birth; height; weight; color of hair; color of eyes; complexion; race; date of arrest and/or offense; offense committed; car make, year, license number, and state; occupation; habits; name of closest relative or friends; scars, marks, or tattoos; any abnormalities; and special remarks. The juvenile records may also include parent(s) or guardian’s name(s), telephone number(s), and occupation(s). If the arrest results in an investigation, the record should be filed with the applicable Criminal Investigative Records item. See also “CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS” items, “CRIMINAL HISTORY SUMMARY RECORDS/RAP SHEETS,” and “MASTER NAME INDEXES.”

RETENTION:

a) Record copy. Retain until obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost.

b) Duplicates. Retain until obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost.

You see, when Sheriff Finch used his proper authority to not pursue charges against Mr. Parish, the records pertaining to his arrest lost their “administrative value.”  Sheriff Finch, by this Florida Regulation was within his authority to destroy this record.

The arrest affidavit of Sheriff Finch gives a pretty detailed account of what took place.  But the arrest affidavit NEVER mentions Parish being booked into custody.  Being placed in a jail cell is not being booked.  If the arrest affidavit is accurate, and we have to trust it to be as it was given under oath, then Parish was never booked so the log that contained his name was in error and the Sheriff’s office also had full authority to white out his name and make space for someone who was actually booked into the jail.

Sheriff Finch never broke a law and never even violated a regulation.  So what is he being accused of doing?

The arrest affidavit claims Sheriff Finch violated Florida Statute 838.022(1).  This statute reads:

F.S.838.022 (1): It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (b): Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another person to perform such an act;

Is Governor Scott trying to tell us that when Sheriff Finch defended our Constitutionally protected Rights he was acting with “corrupt intent?”  Have we really come to the point in our country where honoring your oath to “support and defend the Constitution” and wanting to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” is a crime of corrupt intent?

Is Governor Scott trying to tell us that when Sheriff Finch stood in defense of our Constitutionally protected Rights he was conferring upon Mr. Parish a “benefit.”  The Second Amendment is NOT a benefit it is a RIGHT and the last time I checked it was called a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Benefits.

Do you think Sheriff Finch should just have shut up and enforced the law even knowing it is unconstitutional?  I hope not.  He took oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States FIRST; not an oath to support and defend unconstitutional laws.  If you believe officers should simply enforce all the laws, regardless of their oath, then why in the world do they even take one?  Is it just a pleasant formality that looks good in a ceremony or does it actually mean something?  It is a man of honor who will stand for his word, even when it might be unpopular, even when it might hurt.  Sheriff Finch appears to be a man of such honor.  By the way, I can remember an incident in our recent history, where a Sheriff should have stood for what was right and what was constitutional.  Instead the Sheriff chose to simply enforce the law.  On that day, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to sit in the back of the bus.

The Second Amendment clearly states our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!  Sheriff Finch believes in the Constitution.  He believes in his oath.

Sheriff Finch did nothing wrong.  He defended the Constitution.  He stood in the gap for us.  Now he’s being prosecuted for that.  It’s time to stand in the gap for him.  When our Sheriffs are toppled, then we are the last line of defense.

Watch the Sherrif Finch video explanation of this analysis

Federal Census: Not Just Intrusive: UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

/in /by

There have been many questions about the legitimacy of the extremely intrusive questions on the current and most recent government census.  I have recently been instructed that the census given to those in the agricultural industry is even more intrusive than those given to the average home owner; asking questions like how many bales of hay and how many pieces of equipment of 40 horsepower or more.  In response to these questions I have prepared a brief summary of the purpose of the census, not according to my opinion, but those that drafted, debated, and ratified Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution. I hope this will help us to understand how unconstitutional these census questions really are.

Understanding the purpose of the census is fundamental to understanding its limitations. The purpose of the census was two-fold; the apportionment of representatives and the levying of taxes. Neither of these things is to be determined by property, but by numbers of persons alone.  The reason for the census was to keep the federal government from arbitrarily laying taxes and apportioning unequal suffrage to the states.

“Let it be recollected, that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule; a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that all duties, imposts and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.” (Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper 36)

James Madison makes it clear in Federalist Paper 54 that it is the “fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States, is to be determined by a federal rule founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants… who will be included in the census by which the Federal Constitution apportions the representatives.   We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property.

Therefore the purpose and mechanism of the census is to numbers of people alone and not property…at all.

The current census does a whole lot more than count numbers of people, it counts property as well.  If the framers of the nation said that property is NOT the subject of the census, on what authority can the government include this in the current census?  The logical answer is that they cannot.  They only mechanism that allows them to do this is what our framers called a “forced construction” of the Constitution.

If you go to the government’s website on the census they will assure you that the current census is lawful because the courts say so.  However, that is not the standard our founders laid as the test to legitimacy.  Our founders said the Constitution, not the will of the government, is the only true judge of the government’s power.  Let’s look at the government’s reasoning as it compares to the drafters’ limitations on government.

Government: In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. Title 13, U.S. Code, does not specify which subjects or questions are to be included in the decennial census. However, it does require the Census Bureau to notify Congress of general census subjects to be addressed 3 years before the decennial census and the actual questions to be asked 2 years before the decennial census.

Founders: Let it be recollected, that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule; Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Papers #36

Government: The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution’s census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and “does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics.”

Founders: “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the [states]… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution… James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78

Government: The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy or speech.)

Founders: When told the government had the right to search the colonists property to ensure compliance with the taxes through the mechanism of writs of assistance, James Otis Jr told the court that this power “appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.”

The federal government does not have the authority to assume a power simply because it is not forbidden.  To argue that the “Constitution doesn’t say we can’t do it” is the height of Constitutional heresy! The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated.  If a power is not part of that enumeration it is not a power that belongs to the federal government but to the States!  To claim otherwise is theft of State power.

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)

A Republican Federalist in paper No. 5 stated that “the provision in the system for a representation of the people, which is the corner stone of a free government.” If creating a census was a mechanism to protect the “corner stone of a free government” surely our framers would not have authorized the federal government to engage in principles contrary to that cause though the use of that very mechanism.

The government’s attempt to place property into the national census appears to me to be a mechanism to collect information regarding our personal property with the purpose to tax it in the future.  I also believe the federal government is trying to bring under its control “unauthorized” agricultural activity.

Here is the description of one of the USDA propaganda videos promoting the census:

“How many baseballs could come from the cows American farmers produce? How much college tuition could be paid by U.S. farm income? How many acres of farmland are in conservation programs? These are some of the many things we can learn when U.S. farmers and ranchers respond to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s agricultural surveys. See some of these fun facts brought to life. Learn how important agriculture is to America and the many ways farmers, ranchers and their rural communities benefit from accurate survey responses.”

Sounds like the Feds are licking their chops at another revenue stream.  You farmers alone can pay college tuition for “every student for 3 years.”  Conservation programs? Seems like I’ve heard that one 21 times before?

Since the Federal government and the courts are aligned against these principles, there is no protection that can be expected from such a tyrannical government. The only true limitation and check on governmental power is the people. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence)  We have the right and authority to say we will not allow the transgressing of our rights.  We have the power and the right to say, NO! We will not comply.

Would you like some practical (not legal) advice?   Do what my husband did when they came to our house with this illegal nonsense.  He answered the questions that were Constitutionally sound.  When the surveyor asked questions that were not legally sound, his answer was “None of your business.”  After a few questions answered in this manner, the woman asked my husband, “Is it safe to assume that you will not be answering any of the rest of my questions?”  My husband simply replied, “Ma’am, I have answered all of your questions.  My answer to the rest will likely be ‘None of your business’ because the Constitution does not require me to answer these questions, therefore these questions are illegal.  Just because your computer does not give you to the option to choose “None of your business” as an answer, does not mean that it is not an answer.”  This interaction let into a lesson on the Census and the Constitution and the surveyor left enlightened, and surprisingly happy to have been so.

Open Letter re: "Gun Legislation"

/in /by

Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road. We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price. We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing. The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this “gun debate” and allow them to make the right decisions. By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not. If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance. If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Senators. Please share this letter. Send it to them multiple times, so to be sure they KNOW we are serious.

Thank you,

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

Dear Senator,

Today, as you begin to debate so-called “gun legislation” please consider the following four points:

1. The nature of this legislation. This is NOT “gun legislation” this is 2nd Amendment legislation. Our right to bear arms is a RIGHT given to us by God, not a privilege granted through legislation. It is not something that is up for legislative control. Would we so easily accept “religion legislation”?

2. The sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.

What does the phrase “shall not be infringed mean?” The words are not complicated, they are not elusive. In the legal world, when a judge sees the words “shall not” there is no discussion to be had. It means, literally ‘SHALL NOT,’ completely disallowed, impermissible. It should mean the same to Congress. Noah Webster defined the word “infringed” as “to break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey.” The right to bears arms shall not be broken, shall not be violated, shall not be transgressed. The 2nd amendment shall be fulfilled, shall be obeyed. That is a very clear boundary, not mutable in any way. You don’t need to fully eradicate something for it to be violated or transgressed. Simply placing a hand on something can violate the sanctity of that object. Therefore, the only correct answer to the question, “what does ‘shall not be infringed’ mean?” is as follows: The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be touched!

3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment.

WHY do we have the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights? Contrary to popular belief, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, skeet shooting, gun-collecting nor even self-defense from robbers and muggers.

The framers of this nation made it extremely clear why this right is to be protected.

According to George Mason, we bear arms to keep from becoming ‘slaves’ to our government: “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advise …to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

According to Noah Webster, we bear arms to prevent the government from using a standing army to enforce unjust, unconstitutional, and oppressive laws on the people: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed…The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…A force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional…jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

According to Richard Henry Lee, we bear arms to preserve Liberty: “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

According to Patrick Henry, we bear arms to overthrow tyrants: “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.”

It is notable that the framers declared a “right to bear arms” not a right to “own muskets”. Arms meant the same to them as did to the Supreme Court in 1939. (See United States v. Miller, 307, 174 (U.S 1939) issuing the opinion recognizing that the second amendment protects the people’s right to bear the same arms as the military.)

Therefore, the only correct answer as to WHY our right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights is as follows: The whole body of the people has the right to bear arms to preserve liberty, prevent the government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, oppressive laws; to keep from becoming enslaved by our government and to overthrow tyrants.

4. The process for altering the 2nd amendment. This legislation, being 2nd Amendment legislation, is wholly unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment can ONLY be modified through the Amendment Process.

Be it known that if you continue down this unconstitutional path in your assault upon the Liberty of the American people and upon the foundations of this nation, you will be marked as a tyrant and an enemy of Liberty. We the people, being the only legitimate source of power in this nation, demand that you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Sincerely and In Liberty,

Your Employers

Obamacare: Who Runs Your Life?

/in /by

Thomas Paine wrote on December 23, 1776, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” Our founders stood against taxes and government mandated purchases. The colonists demanded that the British Government recognize that their Constitutions did not authorize this type of government control. As a result, the British Government repealed several laws, to include the Stamp Act. This might be a happy ending except the government was not willing to let go of this power; they were simply appeasing the people. The government did recognize the Constitution did not authorize their exercise of power, so they remedied that “oversight” by passing a law called the Declaratory Act.

The Declaratory Act was a legislative act that declared the government “has, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” In addition to expanding the powers of the government, this act stated that all “resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations” that even questioned the government’s authority are “declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” The government now only needed to prove that the each law was “fit for the good of the empire” to justify its mandates. Thomas Paine and his fellow countrymen recognized that when the government declares for itself unlimited power, there is no limit on the intrusion into and control over the lives of the citizenry.

In the NEW DECLARATORY ACT, Obamacare, the government has declared that they have a “compelling governmental interest” in every aspect of our daily lives, literally a power to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” The original argument against Obamacare was that if the government can force us to purchase healthcare, they can force us to purchase anything. This objection remains true. The mandate of one purchase establishes the precedent of future mandates. To argue otherwise is a denial of the very principles upon which our government has come to operate. Unwelcomed intrusion into our lives and the lack of control over our own decisions will only increase as Obamacare and its underlying philosophy fundamentally transforms the landscape of liberty.

CVS, a major retail chain, recently told its employees that because of the new Obamacare costs, they must now “reveal their height, weight, body fat percentage and other personal information for health insurance purposes.” CVS feels it must “incentivize healthy living” to justify providing healthcare to that employee. Make no mistake, this is the very thought process our government will adopt to justify its intrusion into your life. The Supreme Court has determined the only criteria needed to justify the government regulating any aspect of your life is proof of a “compelling governmental interest,” which does not sound much different than the British standard of “fit for the good of the empire.” Now that the Supreme Court has declared the mandate to purchase healthcare is a compelling governmental interest, the government will have a compelling governmental interest in promoting “healthy living.” Within that compelling governmental interest will be the government’s right to determine how “healthy living” is defined and what the recipients of its healthcare must do to ensure compliance with the government’s standards of “healthy living.” These standards are already being pushed forward.

Just last year, the White House, through its “healthy living” incentives, endorsed by Michelle Obama, pressured Mc Donalds into redesigning its children’s Happy Meals, forcing them to provide fruit in addition to fries, whether the parents wanted them or not.

A compelling governmental interest currently justifies the government in enforcing Food Safety Modernization Act that gives the authority to regulate roadside produce markets and opens the door for the government to regulate your home garden. The FDA is currently employing SWAT teams to raid small farms and markets to seize raw milk and cheese because THEY have determined them to be contrary to “healthy living” and therefore have “a public health duty” to confiscate them. (Is this the “army” Thomas Paine was referring to?)

Let us not forget NY Mayor Bloomberg’s attack on “sugary drinks” and cigarettes, citing “healthy living” and even death prevention as the motivation to control people in their consumption of these items.

Recently the Center for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report that parents who feed their children solid food before the age of 4 months are jeopardizing their child’s health. In a clear declaration that the government knows more about a child than its mother, the CDC condemns ignorant and penny-pinching parents for feeding their children solid food before the government has determined them to be old enough to eat it. How long before the government starts mandating baby feeding regimens, authorizing doctors to interrogate parents and requiring them to report parents who dare to feed their child contrary to government regulations?

Acceptance of Obamacare at the State level sends a clear message to Washington DC that our States will allow the federal government to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” Thomas Paine called that Slavery…we call it a compelling governmental interest. Will we accept servitude in exchange for free stuff? Or will we defend Liberty and refuse to comply with these unlawful and unconstitutional mandates? The answer to these questions will determine what kind of country future generations will inherit.

Obamacare-We Have No Choice? A Letter to Your Representative

/in /by

Has your representative responded to your concerns over Obamacare with the suggestion that there is no choice but to submit to this federal Act because the Supreme Court or the Supremacy Clause requires it? If so, he has just indicated his Constitutional ignorance. DO NOT ACCEPT this as the final word on this matter. DEMAND your representative engage in a rational dialogue with you.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; Obamacare is NOT about healthcare, it is about accepting an unlimited federal government and the destruction of the Constitution. Require your representative to make a choice.

Holding our elected employees accountable means engaging in a proper dialogue and requiring reasoned and intelligent responses. Don’t quit after the first letter. Keep pushing them into accountability and then follow that accountability with consequences.

Here is my suggested response to this ignorance that will sell our children into slavery. IF your representative refuses to respond, send it again and again. IF your representative still refuses to respond, he has admitted to the undeniable conclusions in this letter and CANNOT BE REELECTED; even if that means the opponent wins. How can I say this? “Because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~Winston Churchill.

Dear Representative,

I have received your response to my concerns over the PPACA. You have stated that you believe we are bound by this federal Act because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires it and the Supreme Court of the United States, in their ruling, demands it. Your understanding of this Act deeply concerns me. As a constituent who is responsible for the position you hold, I expect you to maintain a dialogue with me on this issue and will not accept your explanation as the final word in this matter.

When the PPACA was first passed, there was an immediate alarm heard across the nation. The primary concern that fueled the multiple law suits against this Act, of whom you were a supporter, was that if the federal government can force the States and its people to purchase healthcare, what can’t they force us to purchase? Have we forgotten that valid argument? Has the Supreme Court’s ruling somehow altered that conclusion? Surely the Supremacy Clause existed when we felt this alarm. What has changed? Nothing. The Supreme Court did nothing in their ruling to eliminate the inescapable reality that the federal government now has no limitation in binding its citizens to purchase mandated objects. The Supremacy Clause still requires the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, over all other laws and treaties.

Does the Supremacy Clause create a situation where federal law is supreme over the Constitution? If it did, it would create a paradox. How could it be that a federal government, defined and limited by the Constitution, could pass a law that is supreme to the Constitution? What would then be the limitations of the federal government? Do we believe that the Commerce or General Welfare clauses can create an unlimited government that can bind us in all cases whatsoever? The FATHER of the Constitution says that CANNOT be.

Neither the Commerce Clause nor the General Welfare Clause can authorize the federal government to bind the States without limit; and neither can the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. If we acquiesce to an interpretation of the Constitution that establishes NO LIMITS to the federal government, what in the world is the point of the Constitution? Why do we even have a Republican government? The FATHER of the Constitution warns us:

“…for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the –Constitution- which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the –limitations-…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

I am sure that you agree that we did not establish a monarchy in this nation. Logic dictates that James Madison is correct in stating that a government that is not limited is one that is a monarchy. If the federal limitations established by the Constitution be expanded by decree of the federal government itself then there is no limit to its reach. A mandate to purchase healthcare is a mandate to purchase anything the government chooses.

The question remains can the Supreme Court transform our federal government into an unlimited government? The Supreme Court is, after all, a PART of the federal government. How can the federal government have the authority to determine its own limitations?

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the –States-… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” James Madison

If we are to have a Constitutionally limited government it is incumbent upon our elected representatives to maintain those limitations. We CANNOT allow the federal government to define its own powers and limitations, else we allow the federal government to transform itself into a monarchy. I am sure you will agree that no man is perfect and all governments are capable of making error in judgment. That is precisely why the framers of this nation created a government with MULTIPLE checks and balances. YOU are a part of that system; YOU are one of those checks. We are requiring you to do your job and maintain a limited federal government so that the people can maintain their Liberty.

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must know, as Alexander Hamilton declared, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must stand against a federal government that can mandate purchases and therefore bind it’s the people of this nation in all things they choose. Listen to the warning of Thomas Paine:

“Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but ‘to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

Let me reiterate…We MUST maintain a dialogue in this matter. I cannot accept your recent communication as a final word. I am therefore expecting a reasonable response to the concerns stated in this letter. If I do not receive a response, I will have no other choice to then understand that you do not accept these facts to be true. I will then be forced to believe:

1. You support an unlimited federal government;

2. You feel no obligation to fulfill your role as a check against unlimited federal power;

3. You agree that the federal government can bind the people of this nation in any circumstance they feel fit;

4. You support the forced slavery of the citizens of this state.

If that is the case, you have failed as our elected employee. As a rational person I am sure you can agree that we cannot maintain an employee who refuses to communicate with a supervisor and supports behavior that will destroy the company. As reasonable owners of this Constitutional Republic, who wholly respect and sovereignly reverence the price paid for this company, we cannot allow that to happen.

I will be waiting for your prompt and reasonable reply.

Sincerly,