Why Care About the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble establishes the reason for the existence of a given document. It establishes context of the document and is foundational to properly understand and interpret the document. It gives us the Who, the What, and the Why behind the creation of the document.

The Preamble to the American Bill of Rights, for example, details why the US Founding Fathers believed the document to be necessary and states the thesis of the document:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Who called for its authorship? The representatives of the States.

Why did they believe it to be necessary? “… to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers… [and to] extend[ing] the ground of public confidence in the Government..” They believed the US Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the God-given rights of citizens, especially in light of the creation of a standing army, which several of the Founders had previously observed, was, historically, always eventually used as a weapon against the people.

For what purpose was the document written according to the Preamble? To add “… further declaratory and restrictive clauses…” to our Constitution. In other words, the limit the authority and reach of the US federal government.

If you take the resulting Amendments to the Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights out of this context, you can justify alternate understandings.

So, for instance, the US courts have concluded that the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," applies to a standing army. But if the bill of Rights was intended to restrict the government and limit its authority, how can this be? The standing army must follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and carry out the wishes of the federal government. In what way does this restrict the government? It doesn’t. So given the context established by the Preamble, the Second Amendment must, of necessity, apply to another entity - the Citizen Militia. The Citizen Militia exists to act as a counter-balance to the federal government, to act if the government becomes tyrannical.

By taking the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” out of the context established by the Preamble, courts have determined that the government IS permitted to conduct warrantless surveillance of our citizens. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to make it more difficult for the government to conduct searches, surveillance, and seizure - not less. So given the context established by the Preamble, there is no enumerated right or exception under which the government is permitted to conduct ANY kind of search or surveillance on citizens unless ALL of the requirements outlined in the Fourth Amendment are met.

These are just two examples.

The Preamble, then, is critical to a proper understanding of the resultant document; ignore it, and anything can be justified.

Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

The Second Amendment - The Teeth Of The Constitution...

I'm betting that there are a lot of middle eastern countries that wish they had the same individual right to own firearms as a deterrent to terrorists that we have here in the US. 

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited (mistakenly - no one knows where this quote actually originated) with saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While the quote may be misattributed, the truth underlying it is accurate. 

We have historically had two barriers to terrorism in the US - oceans and the private ownership of firearms that make the unorganized citizen militia a reality. Air travel has largely nullified the first barrier; that makes the remaining barrier that much more important. 

The sculpture in this photo was displayed this year during the Art Prize competition in Grand Rapids, MI, in an effort to get people to focus on gun control. I changed the background and now display this as a reminder of how critical the Second Amendment is to maintaining our Constitutional rights and defending them from ALL enemies - foreign and domestic.

Michigan Bill Would Require Epipens In Restaurants, Bars...

"'I just thinks this gives the freedom for individual businesses and organizations and groups to be able to provide for a lifesaving device in case there's an emergency, if they feel that's something in the best interest of the organization,' said Posthumus Lyons… Name brand EpiPens typically cost around $300. BUSINESSES WOULD PAY FOR THE DEVICES, meaning no cost would be passed on to the state or taxpayers," emphasis added.

Since when does an UNFUNDED LEGAL REQUIREMENT equate to FREEDOM?

So the MI legislature is considering an UNFUNDED MANDATE on businesses, REQUIRING them to provide Epipens and procure state-approved training and storage AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, indemnifying them against prosecution, but this same legislature will not consider legislation that would prohibit businesses from discriminating against the Second Amendment RIGHTS of individuals to carry their lawfully-owned firearms for their own protection (think about pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who used his lawfully-owned firearm to prevent an armed robbery of the Walgreens in Benton Harbor where he was employed - and then was fired for doing so), prohibit insurance companies from employing discriminatory insurance premiums against businesses that would otherwise permit lawful carry (such as has been experienced by the Original Gun and Knife Show), or indemnify businesses against the lawful application of lethal force in self-defense situations - all of which have been provided to the citizens of numerous other states under their laws - because they don't want to "burden" businesses or infringe on their "rights," or, more to the point, because they are deathly afraid of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which opposes such legislation.

http://woodtv.com/2014/09/24/proposed-law-would-require-epipens-in-bars-restaurants/

Chuck Schumer: Choose One, Your Faith Or Your Business; You Can't Have Both...

"You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion AND THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation," Schumer said (emphasis added).

Wrong answer. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US NOTHING!!! The Constitution PROTECTS what is already ours.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

According to Schumer, John Adams had no idea what he was talking about.

This is one more attack on our First Amendment rights by the administration, which is seeking to re-interpret the First Amendment as a "freedom to worship," rather than freedom of religion.

Schumer: religious americans pick one your faith or your business

Michigan Police Departments Harassing Lawful Open Carriers….

At some point, police, who are supposed to know the law, have an obligation to begin explaining to people who call in that someone carrying a clearly holstered firearm and exhibiting no illegal behavior is within their rights under Michigan law. There are too many police departments that have instructed public offices to contact them whenever someone simply carrying a clearly holstered firearm shows up - regardless of whether they are actually engaging in illegal behavior (Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, and Ottawa County are just a few examples), and they are rolling units to respond to calls from people who are calling for no other reason than that the sight of a person carrying a clearly holstered frightens them, not because that individuals is doing something illegal.  I regularly see people openly carrying firearms in my line of work. As long as they aren't doing anything that could be considered illegal, I let them go on about their business.  Police are supposed to be ENFORCING THE LAW, not harassing law abiding citizens. 

Somehow we have come to accept the notion (and that is ALL it is) that people have a right to FEEL safe. No where does the Constitution express such a protected right. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to actually BE SAFE via the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Fourth Amendment right to be safe from illegal searches and seizures, which REQUIRES a duly authorized and issued WARRANT based on PROBABLE CAUSE that someone is engaging in an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY; the Michigan state Constitution contains a similar protection. A situation occurring recently in Kalamazoo, MI, in which a public library called police to report a carrier exercising his right to openly carry a clearly holstered firearm (Police called on lawfully carrying citizen), doesn't even meet the incredibly low standard of a Terry Stop (reasonable suspicion of illegal activity).

Those who say they have a right to feel safe need to read the study commissioned by none other than Obama himself. It clearly concludes that 1) citizens use their firearms with incredible regularity to deter crime and 2) those who do so are actually SAFER from crime than those who do not.

That's why Obama is crying for more money to carry out more "studies." The first study, using objective data, failed to confirm his agenda. He needs to keep digging until he finds someone who will.

In the meantime, it is time for law enforcement to begin enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold - and explain those rights to otherwise ignorant citizens.

Finstein's San Francisco Handgun Ban Effectiveness By The Numbers….

OK. Sen. Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 (1978 - 1988) after the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; Feinstein, by the way, was the first to come upon Milk's body after he was shot. The murders were carried out by a former police officer using his five shot .38 special duty weapon; he carried 10 extra rounds with him that day (hmmm - maybe this has something to do with her obsession with 10 round limitations?). Surprisingly, even though she traces her gun control obsession back to this event, a five round .38 special is what DiFi carried herself, and that weapon has never made it onto any of the gun ban lists she has compiled while in congress.

After assuming control of the mayor's office, she pushed through the San Francisco handgun ban - something about which she is very proud. After passing the ban, citizens had 90 days to turn in their firearms, so the effect on firearm-related crimes should have been immediate.

But the question is, HOW EFFECTIVE was her handgun ban (which was eventually overturned in 2008)? Following are the raw murder numbers for the years 1978 - 1990 (unfortunately, the numbers from that far back do not tell us how many of these crimes were actually committed using handguns):

1978 - 113

1979 - 108

1980 - 110

1981 - 121

1982 - 106

1983 - data not available 

1984 - data not available

1985 - 85

1986 - 114

1987 - 103

1988 - 92

1989 - data not available

1990 - 102

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1286828-top-25-cities-violent-crime-rate-9.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/californ/crime/1191.htm

The raw data tell us that he prized handgun ban had little, if an, effect on murder in San Francisco during her tenure as mayor.  In the years from 1990 to the present, murder rates did indeed drop, but they follow the same general pattern as was experienced by the entire nation, so the drop cannot be linked to her handgun ban. Additional study would have to be done to see what effect, if any, her ban had on rates of armed robbery.

In short, her gun bans had little if any effect on crime in San Francisco during her years in the mayor's office.  Likewise, the bans for which she has fought while in congress have proved ineffectual, as the incidence of violent crimes of all sorts have steadily fallen for the last twenty years, while at the same time firearms ownership and carry have dramatically inreased.

That isn't going to stop her from trying to get all of the guns, though.

Pres. Obama and the "Chains of the Constitution"

Some time ago, Pres. Obama made a remark regarding his frustration with the way Constitutional constraints hampered his efforts to reshape America according to his own ideals:

"It turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.  But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction..."

And, for once, he nails it. 

It cannot be expressed any better than the following words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:

"...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution…"

Mr. President, when the direction you desire to go conflicts with, or diverges from, the directions established in our Constitution, you are going in the WRONG direction.  End of story.

It is past time to re-bind our government with the chains of the Constitution that were intended to safeguard the enumerated rights of the States, and more importantly, the People. 

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)

Capitol Shooting - Mother Was Depressed. Obviously We Need Vehicle Control Laws....

Regarding the recent capitol shooting: the driver was known to Connecticut police, it appears that she was suffering from depression and had been hospitalized for it at one point, and she rammed the barrier at the White House because she believed that Pres. Obama was stalking her (actually, she wasn't far from wrong on that count!).

Obviously, her right to own a vehicle should have been taken away long ago. 

We need to provide comprehensive, universal background checks as a condition to owning a vehicle, and we need to limit the capacity of gas tanks of all vehicles to not more than 10 gallons to insure that someone can't try something like this again. We need to immediately ban all high capacity gas tanks (11 gallons or larger), and register all vehicles in a federal database that can take a high capacity gas tank. Sen. Pelosi should waste more tax payer dollars looking at photos of vehicles so that she can come up with a list of scary-looking assault vehicles that should be banned from ownership unless you buy a tax stamp first; this list will grandfather in historic assault vehicles. It is imperative that the President pass an executive order banning the reimportation of any US-made historic assault vehicle that may have been provided to another country 60 years ago during the course of a war.

Further, the right of anyone associated with such a person to own a vehicle, especially one with a high capacity gas tank or, heaven forbid, an assault vehicle, should be curtailed as well to insure that the disturbed person can't illegally acquire the vehicle by running the owner over with their own vehicle. In addition, vehicle free zones should be established to prevent such people from getting too close to the White House, congress, and schools, and teachers and other school staff should be forbidden to possess a vehicle in a school zone. Malls, theaters, hospitals and other commercial entities should have the right to post themselves as vehicle free zones. The simple act of posting a vehicle free zone sign will be sufficient to deter someone who is potentially dangerous from using their vehicle to commit a crime, such as ramming a 7-11 for the purpose of dragging out the ATM.

If we take these measures, we can insure that something like this never happens again, because everyone knows that disturbed people, or even hard core bad guys, would never try to circumvent this system by illegally acquiring a vehicle or modifying a legal vehicle by adding a high capacity gas tank and other assault vehicle features.

Sound absurd? I can think of at least one other area in which these same conditions are considered to be "common sense," even though that area accounts for a fraction of the deaths that occur in the US as compared to automobile ownership.

Michigan Math: 10% Reduction in Police Force = 22% Reduction In Crime

The "experts" can't explain it, but Mlive published an article in their Sunday, 08/25/13, edition that demonstrates this phenomenon.

Statewide, Michigan has shed 10% of its police force, yet during the same time period, crime, including violent crime, has decreased 22%.  On a local level, Grand Rapids, MI, which has shed 17% of its police force in recent years, has seen a 33% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime.

The "experts" have proffered various explanations, each more preposterous than the previous one.  One author posits that free access to abortion on demand accounts for the drop.  Another points to the switch to lead-free gasoline, while others posit that baby boomers were crime-prone and are now too old to commit crime.  Yet another "expert" points to the utopia that is Obama's new America.  Being unable to build any consensus among these experts, Mlive turned to the leadership of the police community, who attribute the reduction to technology - especially surveillance cameras and cell phones.

Long story short, they continue to grasp at straws when the most obvious answer is in front of them.

I have been saying it for years: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!!!

In roughly the same time period as the reduction in crime, private gun ownership has skyrocketed; nearly 500,000 private citizens have concealed pistol licenses. As the article points out at the end, despite what the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun grabbing world would like you to believe, more legal gun ownership does not equal more crime or even more gun accidents!!! This is simply the result of private citizens exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.  

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Michigan is bleeding police officers. In the past decade, enough cops have been cut to equal the elimination of all Michigan State Police officers and the entire sworn force in Grand Rapids, the state’s second-largest city.

But there’s the conundrum, an MLive Media Group investigation found.

Despite the decline, you have never been safer in Michigan from serious crimes in a decade.

People don’t get robbed as much, or assaulted, or raped.

Cars thefts are rarer by half.

Your wallets and purses are less likely to be taken.

At the same time, there are fewer police in your neighborhood.

It is an enigma for cops, who hope more officers mean less crime.

The MLive investigation analyzed a decade of police manpower and crime statistics in the state since 2003. The analysis covered more than 500 departments, and 2.3 million reported crimes.

The conclusion was surprising. Even as communities bemoan the loss of sworn officers, serious crimes continue to drop in most places across the state.

So why do we need more police – or even as many as we have?

The answer is perplexing for departments that push for greater staffing as the economy picks up, but struggle to find statistical support.

“I’ve got command staff and officers that want to make the argument that crime numbers are up as our numbers have dropped, and it can’t be done,” said Lt. Patrick Merrill, an analyst for the Grand Rapids Police Department.  

Less Cops Equals Less Crime

 The article tries to offer several explanations for these results, including free access to abortion, unleaded gasoline, even Obama. An accompanying article supposedly from the police perspective tries to pin these results on better technology - especially surveillance systems and access to cell phones. THEY refuse to acknowledge the facts. When a study concluded that, in the more than 20 years since the passage of the federal gun free school zones act, the incidence of kids bringing weapons of all kinds to schools dropped a whole percent, "experts" immediately proclaimed that this was a direct result of the GFSZA - even though there were no "scientific" studies to back this up. But when it is revealed that crime, especially violent crime, in Michigan has dropped MORE THAN 20% STATEWIDE since the passage of our expanded CPL laws (just over 10 years), the "experts" say there is no way we can say with certainty that the drop has anything to do with the expansion of legal gun ownership and concealed carry.

Do I feel vindicated, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS SAME MEDIA GROUP CONTINUES TO PUSH FOR MORE STRICT GUN CONTROL IN MICHIGAN?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!!!

I just faxed this article to my legislators in both DC & Lansing. I encourage the rest of you Michiganders to do the same!

Here are their fax numbers:

Carl Levin: 1-202-224-1388
Debbie Stabenow: 1-202-228-0325
Rick Snyder: 1-517-335-6863

 For the rest of our Michigan state legislators, use the link on the sidebar.

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) - Is YOUR mayor's name on Bloomberg's membership list?

The following link will take you to the membership list for MAIG:

MAIG Membership List

They believe they can target firearm owners with impunity; come election time, we can target THEM for removal from office.

An Open Letter to Pre. Obama Regarding His Administration's Blatant Violations of the Constitution

Mr. President,

Your administration has taken surveillance of American citizens farther than any administration to-date. And since the NSA is monitoring everything these days, particularly the postings of conservatives, I feel relatively certain that they will stumble across this posting.

I agree with a past leader of our country who was far wiser than you regarding the lengths to which you are going to "keep us safe:" 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

I am well aware that your predecessor set up a system whereby he thought he could skirt the Bill of Rights with impunity, a system your administration is now taking to lengths never before imagined. I am aware that it was the republicans who pushed through the so-called "patriot act," an act which you condemned as a senator, but of which you take full advantage today. I condemned your predecessor's and the republicans' attempts to skirt the Constitution, as I condemn yours today. I will state this plainly: an unConstitutional law is an illegal law. A law that purports to protect the Constitution by violating it is an illegal law. A law that infringes upon the rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the name of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Sovereignty Clauses is an illegal law. That this is true is declared in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Cruikshank, 1875:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PARTICULAR STATE OF WHICH HE IS A CITIZEN TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE THEM, AND TO DO NAUGHT TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THEIR FULL ENJOYMENT. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE." 

These attempts to circumvent the Constitution, to implement unConstitutional laws, must end now, and those who have promulgated these policies must be held accountable for breaking their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They have become what they profess to hate.

Romeike Family Amnesty Resolution, Michigan House of Representatives....

The following resolution in support of the Romeike family was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives today by Rep. Tom Hooker, along with 16 co-sponsors; it was sent to the Committee on Gov't Operations, or as Rep Hooker termed it, the place where bills go to die:

Rep. Hooker offered the following resolution:

House Resolution No. 159.

A resolution to call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested.

Whereas, In our nation's past, we have celebrated immigrants who came to this country in order to escape the persecution that was brought against them. Furthermore, the United States Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has stated that "...creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the eleven million unauthorized immigrants in this country...is a matter of civil and human rights"; and

Whereas, The Romeike family, which consists of Uwe, Hannelore, and their six children, have deeply held religious beliefs and convictions regarding how their children should be educated. Over the course of time the Romeikes came to believe that the state school system in Germany, which does not permit homeschooling as an alternative to the public school system, was educating their children in ways that were at odds with their beliefs. Upon making their decision to pull their children out of the state education system, they were heavily fined, their children were taken to school under police escort, and they faced litigation from the state; and

Whereas, The Romeike family immigrated to the United States in 2008 and in 2010 were granted initial asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. In 2012, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals overruled this decision and denied asylum. In 2013, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the family's appeal; and

Whereas, Our society has held for the better part of the last two hundred and twenty-four years that, as expressed by Albert Gallatin, "[T]he whole Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority have the right to deprive them of"; and

Whereas, The ruling against the permanent grant of asylum to the Romeike family will have the effect of establishing a legal precedent of divesting certain parents of the fundamental right to direct the education of their children by choosing homeschooling, thus limiting their ability to practice their freedom of religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, explicitly states:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" and

Whereas, The youngest daughter of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike is entitled to all of the rights and protections afforded to all citizens of our country under the United States Constitution. She was born within the United States and is a United States citizen. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;" now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

"We need your honor..."

Fine, then let's see that honor demonstrated by the Commander in Chief first.

“We need your honor, that inner compass that guides you, not when the path is easy and obvious, but it’s hard and uncertain, that tells you the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong,” Obama said. “Perhaps it will be the moment when you think nobody’s watching. But never forget that honor, like character, is what you do when nobody’s looking.”

Practice what you preach, Mr. President.  You have no moral authority to make such a demand.

Let me paraphrase your other relevant remark from this address:

“Those who commit dereliction of duty after receiving numerous please for help, who order troops to stand down when our ambassador and his staff are being murdered, who direct the IRS to target conservatives and others with whose ideology you personally disagree, who tell Christians that they must fund abortion and give vocal approval to homosexuality in violation of their First Amendment Rights, who direct the Department of State to provide funding and weapons to islamic terrorist organizations and hostile governments, and who direct immigration and other law enforcement agencies not to enforce our laws regarding illegal aliens, just to give a few examples, are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that makes our country strong.” 

True leadership doesn't make demands of others that it doesn't first make of itself.

Pres. Obama to West Point Grads: "We need your honor..."

Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?

"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…"  B.H. Obama

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg 

At every turn, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. It's amazing that the words "unalienable" or "shall not be infringed" could ever be interpreted as, "at the government's whim."

If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.

The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."

Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.

The Romeike Deportation Battle - Responding to a Grossly Uninformed Critic...

The following was posted to the wall of the Facebook Group, Stop the DOJ's Persecution of the Romeike Family, last night: "They came here to escape proscecution for NOTt sending their children to school which is the Law.. not for religious proscecution" (copied here EXACTLY as it was posted to the wall).

This is our response:  And the reason for which they objected to the law and the teaching of the schools that led to their decision to homeschool was based on their religious convictions. Acts 5:27-28, "And when they had brought them [the apostles], they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." The lawmakers of their day forbad the apostles to teach about Jesus; you can see their response. 

There comes a point where we must obey the Bible over man's laws. 

This country was founded, in no small part, by individuals who came here to worship according to their convictions regarding what the Bible taught. The law of their day outlawed all but the state religion. Using Holder's argument, the pilgrims didn't have a claim of religious persecution, because the law applied equally to everyone - it didn't single out any particular religious sect. Furthermore, Holder argues that the Romeike's decision to flee the country must be consistent with the general beliefs of their religion; since their religion requires neither homeschooling nor fleeing the country, they have no right to do either of those things, either. They have no individual right to freedom of religion. So according to Holder's arguments, the pilgrims had no right to flee the country because their religion didn't require such action of them. 

We, however, believe in the pre-eminence of the individual conscience and hold, along with Gallatin, that the Bill of Rights protects the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms of religion, conscience, association, and self-determination as unalienable rights. Holder's arguments are disturbing because he is, in fact, arguing the WE don't have an individual right to these things, either. This case establishes the precedent for the demolition of individual liberties and the supremacy of the individual conscience.

Where the "Gun Problem" exists...

Yup.  That about sums it up.

The Romeike Family Deportation Battle and Why it Matters to ALL OF US...

Why is the Romeike homeschooling deportation case important? In a word, PRECEDENT.

The foundation for the DOJ case is two-fold.

First, AG Holder argues that the Romeike family has no right to asylum because German law bans homeschooling for everyone, not just religious families. Since the law applies to everyone, he argues, no one can claim they are being persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Second, he argues that the Romeike family failed to prove that ALL RELIGIONS, or even their own religion, require homeschooling.

The underlying idea, then, is that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to freedom of religion in the US, only a GENERAL right to worship - and the interests of the state supersede the individual conscience. As such, AG Holder is using a relatively obscure case to establish a precedent that will effect ALL OF US.

This is contrary to our history. We have taught that the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution; under the Holder doctrine, this teaching must be revised. Adherence to the state religion was mandatory for all citizens at the time the pilgrims came to the New World, so under the Holder doctrine, they had no legitimate claim to religious persecution since the law was binding on all and did not target any specific religious group.

Further, it is contrary to the understanding of the Founders, expressed so eloquently by Albert Gallatin, member of congress in the late 1700's and Treasure Secretary from 1801 - 1813: 

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large OR CONSIDERED AS INDIVIDUALS... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

If AG Holder is successful in having this family deported based on these arguments, he will establish a ruinous precedent regarding our individual liberties. Supporting this family's battle to retain their asylum is support for ALL of us.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-DOJs-Persecution-of-the-Romeike-Family/489996021048844