Trump And The Constitution….

 So now former Pres. Trump says the election provisions of the Constitution should be suspended to place him in office, still alleging widespread election fraud.

Which leads one to ask, if he is willing to suspend the election provisions of the Constitution to put himself back in office, what might he be willing to do to STAY in office should he win another election? Might he be willing to suspend the 22nd Amendment to give himself UNLIMITED terms of office, a LIFETIME presidency, set himself uo as dictator?!

Time to Retire the Pledge of Allegiance....

I grew up beginning each school day reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.  I knew it, I believed it.  It embodied what I hoped America would be.

Sadly, I have come to see that, more and more, the lofty ideals it contains have very little correlation with the realities of America, especially in recent decades.  And if we do not return to those ideals, then it is a lie - and it should be relegated to history.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”  Our states are not united in any way, shape, or form.  We are a loose federation of self-serving states, each one intent on pursuing it’s own interests and agendas - and the good of the nation and the Constitution be damned.  And no, I can think of no more appropriate way to characterize that outlook.

“And to the Republic for which it stands.”  The account is given of a conversation between Benjamin Franklin and Mrs. Powel of Pennsylvania:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

The Founders strenuously resisted setting up a democracy.  They recognized that democracies all meet the same fate: they devolve into struggles between factions and die.  Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Benjamin Franklin observed that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”  And Alexander Hamilton, lionized in the musical, Hamilton, stated, “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” 

The idea of a Republic, based on Constitutionally defined principles and God-given rights protected from government intrusion and infringement was the goal.  It wasn’t perfect.  It initially incorporated compromises that were intended to be short-term, that were enacted in an effort to hold the fledgling Republic together.  The Founders were fully cognizant of its shortcomings.  That’s why they built in mechanisms by which laws - and even the Constitution itself - could be changed to eventually protect the rights of ALL of our citizens.  The incorporation of the amendatory process was the poison pill for the institutions of slavery and misogyny.

Instead, the citizens of our country have overwhelmingly chosen the tyranny of democracy.  Our schools and universities incorrectly teach and promote the misconception that we are a democracy.  The warning given by Hamilton (who, by the way, was an elitist who bought slaves on behalf of his family and was far from being the abolitionist the musical portrays him to be) has become a reality.  In its quest to be a true democracy, this country is destroying itself.  The Republic is dead.

“One nation.” We are not one nation, we are a conglomerate of many nations and interests, each intent on serving itself and imposing its will on others.  Once upon a time, those who came to America did so with the idea and intent of becoming as American as possible.  They gave up their native languages and learned english.  They learned new cultural norms. And they encouraged their children to fully adopt their new identity, to become AMERICAN.  They personified what Teddy Roosevelt wrote in his essay, “True Americanism”: “... We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. We have no room in any healthy American community for a German-American vote or an Irish-American vote, and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote. We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else...” That I am of german and dutch ancestry is incidental to the fact that I am an AMERICAN, yet this country has turned that idea on its head.  We are not “one nation”, we are a collection of nations in which everything comes before -American: german-american, mexican-american, asian-american, african-american, the list goes on.  And every flag, linguistic, and ethnic designation takes precedence over the idea that we are, first and foremost, Americans.

“Under God.” This is self evident.  We have declared ourselves to be a secular society.  Humanism is the religion of America.  Religion has no place in the public arena.  The ten commandments are removed from court houses.  Religious sculptures are removed from the public square.  People who declare themselves to be “Christians” divorce themselves from what they claim to believe in order to vote for individuals who in no way, shape, or form exemplify God’s values, arguing that we don’t elect a “pastor-/theologian-in-chief”.  Yet we continue to invoke God’s blessing on the USA.

“Indivisible.” Do I really need to say more about this?  We are divided and fractured along every conceivable line.

“With liberty and justice for all.”  While we have come a long way in this regard, we have far to go. Discrimination is an ever-present factor in our society.  Delivery of justice is arbitrary.  We are far from achieving the goal enunciated by Teddy Roosevelt in his essay: “... We believe in waging relentless war on rank-growing evils of all kinds, and it makes no difference to us if they happen to be of purely native growth. We grasp at any good, no matter whence it comes. We do not accept the evil attendant upon another system of government as an adequate excuse for that attendant upon our own; the fact that the courtier is a scamp does not render the demagogue any the less a scoundrel...” It is an indisputable fact that blacks were brought here as slaves, that laws have been promulgated over the years to keep them “in their place,” and that they were exterminated in large numbers when their usefulness ended.  It is an indisputable fact that chinese were brought here as indentured servants to build our railroads, work canneries in Alaska, and man our laundries.  When a section of the railroad was completed in the Snake River canyon, hundreds of chinese workers were herded into a cave and its mouth was dynamited.  It is an indisputable fact that, in no small part, our nation’s infrastructure and wealth was built in the back of slaves and indentured servants.  And it is an indisputable fact that many who call themselves “Christians” have coopted, contaminated, the message of the Bible to justify their treatment of minorities.  We have and we continue to deny justice and liberty to all.

There are many things that I am NOT saying here.  There is simply not time or space to cover everything, so please don’t PRESUME that you know where I stand on an issue based solely on what I have said here; you will likely be wrong. But it has become painfully evident to me that the Pledge of Allegiance has no correlation with the realities of life in America.  It is time to stop pretending otherwise.

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.

Even Pro-Gun Control Author Understands The Danger Of The "Gun Free" Zone….

The following is from an article written by Jason Stadtlander, a writer for HuffPo and a supporter of gun control.  While I disagree with his stance on gun control, I heartily agree with his conclusions regarding so-called "gun free" zones:

"A ban on guns is not gun control. I am for gun control -- that is, controlling who can have guns and who cannot. I do believe that individuals who own guns should go through a screening, licensure and perhaps even medical-history evaluation, but this is not the same as banning guns or preventing ownership of guns.

Alexander Hamilton once said, "The constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

"Peaceable citizens" is the key term here. We are maintaining a level of peace by providing knowledge that there are repercussions for certain actions… As long as guns exist in the world, criminals will always have guns -- but we law-abiding citizens have the power to choose whether we will hold our own strength against them.

"[…]Casting aside emotion, let's think logically about this. What good comes from preventing people who can legally own guns -- those who have passed federal, state and local licensure and are required to pass a gun-safety course -- from bringing concealed firearms into a public building?

Are the violent people who walk in with the intent to shoot up a Panera Bread, a Walmart, a Target or a Kroger grocery store going to care what prohibitive gun policies are in place? And at the front end, will these intent-to-kill people have a license to carry to begin with?

In our legitimate desire to ward off disastrous gun violence, might we actually be preventing the only people who stand a chance at stopping said criminals from, at the very least, avoiding a worst-case scenario? Yes, the authorities can be called, and perhaps there would even be a police officer on site, but might people who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon be our first critical line of defense in such desperate situations?

[…] Ask yourself this question: If you were a criminal, had a bone to pick with society or were mentally unstable and wanted to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible, would you walk into a McDonald's where there is no ban on guns and you might get shot, or would you set your sights on a Panera Bread, where you do not need to worry about resistance of any kind?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p-stadtlander/gun-bans-a-safe-haven-for_b_5792314.html

Mr. Stadtlander has come full circle to the observation made by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Thoughts on Defensive War :

"[….] but since some will not, others dare not lay them [arms] aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

Have An Introspective Constitution Day….

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

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. 

Critical Lessons Lost To History….

Insights from two men of history who were much smarter than I.

"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. THE LAWS OF THIS NATURE ARE THOSE WHICH FORBID TO WEAR ARMS, DISARMING THOSE ONLY WHO ARE NOT DISPOSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME WHICH THE LAWS MEAN TO PREVENT. CAN IT BE SUPPOSED, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED LAWS OF HUMANITY, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE CODE, WILL RESPECT THE LESS CONSIDERABLE AND ARBITRARY INJUNCTIONS, THE VIOLATION OF WHICH IS SO EASY, AND OF SO LITTLE COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? IT CERTAINLY MAKES THE SITUATION OF THE ASSAULTED WORSE, AND OF THE ASSAILANTS BETTER, AND RATHER ENCOURAGES THAN PREVENTS MURDER, AS IT REQUIRES LESS COURAGE TO ATTACK UNARMED THAN ARMED PERSONS," Cesare Bonesana, "On Crimes and Punishment," 1764.

"But the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defensive arms. The Americans, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized amounts to this. These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. THUS THE PEACEABLE PART OF MANKIND WILL BE CONTINUALLY OVERRUN BY THE VILE AND ABANDONED, WHILE THEY NEGLECT THE MEANS OF SELF DEFENCE. THE SUPPOSED QUIETUDE OF A GOOD MAN ALLURES THE RUFFIAN; WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; BUT SINCE SOME WILL NOT, OTHERS DARE NOT LAY THEM ASIDE. AND WHILE A SINGLE NATION REFUSES TO LAY THEM DOWN, IT IS PROPER THAT ALL SHOULD KEEP THEM UP. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War," published in Pennsylvania Magazine, 1775. 

What is true of nations is true of individuals as well. Since some will not lay down their arms, others dare not. While a single bad guy refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.

Remember, Thomas Paine was a Quaker - a pacifist, but even HE recognized the truth of this precept.

An Open Letter To Pres. Obama And Congress: DEFAULT IS NOT AN OPTION...

October 16, 2013

Mr. President, Legislators:  

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, SECTION 4:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

No matter what else doesn't get paid, you don't have a choice:  DEFAULT IS NOT AN OPTION; YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THIS.  THIS BILL GETS PAID BEFORE ALL OTHERS.

PERIOD.

The House of Representatives has passed legislation to pay this.  The CONSTITUTION, which you have all sworn to uphold, prohibits you from playing politics with America's debt.

GET IT DONE, NOW. 

An Angry Constituent

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.

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.

"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.

US Army: No Purple Hearts for Victims of Ft. Hood Massacre...

OK -- so the administration made the decision to assassinate an American and his family living abroad because he was PLANNING an attack on US interests (he richly deserved prosecution for his actions, but the DOJ readily admits that they had no specific intelligence relating to specific acts of terrorism or specific targets), declaring him a traitor and a terrorist without a trial, but they are afraid to label this man, who actually carried out an attack on fellow service personnel, on US soil, a traitor and terrorist - thereby denying the affected service personnel and their families the decorations, benefits and assistance that they should rightfully be receiving? 

According to Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution, this man is a traitor: 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." 

He carried out an act of war against the US in support of muslim extremist enemies of this country. He is a traitor and a terrorist under the terms of this article of the Constitution. He is still Constitutionally due his day in open court, but make no mistake about it - he is a traitor and a terrorist; for the military to say otherwise is an affront to all members of our armed forces, particularly those who were personally affected by his actions.

If you find this offensive, pass this on - and contact your legislators to demand that this travesty be corrected immediately.

U-S-Army-Protects-Shooter-Says-No-Purple-Hearts-For-Ft-Hood-Victims

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.

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

Senator Paul Achieves Constitutional Victory!!!

Sen. Paul accomplished his goal!

In response to his filibuster, the received the following message from AG Eric Holder:

"'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'  The answer to that question is NO. (emphasis added)"

Thank you, Senator!  And shame on the rest of you who made him go it alone.  You swore an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution; that is your primary duty, from which all others are derived.  Once again, David takes on Goliath while the rest of the army stands on the sidelines - not willing to take part in the battle, but, instead, deriding the one man who was willing to engage the fight. 

Well done, Senator Paul.

The Bill of Rights v. the Clauses

The battle lines are being drawn.  The fields of battle are varied, but they share one commonality: whether they concern federal abortifacient mandates, gun control, or the health mandate, all represent conflicts between enumerated Constitutional rights and the big three clauses - the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution.

A number of states have initiated legislation to reassert their rights under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal legislation that conflicts with those rights.  The typical federalist answer is that the big three clauses trump the rights of the States or the People.

Here is my response to appeals to the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses: 

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.  

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.  

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution..." (all caps added). 

 
The stated intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the abuse of power by the federal government by restricting the very clauses to which many in Congress have appealed. Simply stated, the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights SUPERSEDE the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses - regardless of whether federalist-minded judges agree with that truth. The Bill of Rights was ratified by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, which was absolutely necessary because Washington was opposed to many of the provisions it contained (it is interesting to note that the Preamble of the Bill of Rights says nothing about the President SIGNING it, only that it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and by a three-quarters supermajority of the legislatures of the States). Why? Because the provisions of the Bill of Rights  would have served to diminish the absolute power of the federal government. George Washington's circular letter to the governors of the States and his retirement address both declare his unswerving belief that this would be detrimental to the future of the country, that an absolutely supreme, all powerful, centralized government to which the States and the People were in absolute subservience was the only way to insure our future. We can see where Washington's beliefs have taken us as our Constitutionally-enumerated rights continue to be eroded by a power-hungry government that represents its own interests and agenda.

Remember: the United States was created by the States.  The principle established in the Bible is that the potter has power over the clay.  It is inappropriate for the clay to say to the potter, "Why have you made me this way?"  So it is supposed to be in the relationship between the States and the federal government.  The States created the federal government.  The States, therefore, retain the power to determine the extent to which federal authority is allowed to go.

John Stossel, ABC News - The Myth that Gun Control Reduces Crime

George Washington and the loss of Constitutionally-enumerated Rghts...

The problem we face today with the unbridled attacks on our Constitutionally-enumerated rights is that those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution - going all the way back to George Washington - hijacked it.

From the very beginning of our government a war has been fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists. They believed (indeed, Jefferson and Madison, the two main authors of the Constitution, explicitly worded the Constitution with these goals in mind) in a small, general purpose government with a set of very clearly defined authorities. Having just won a war against a large, centralized government, they were rightfully concerned about the possibility of seeing a similarly all-powerful, centralized government being established in the US - so much so, that when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (which passed both the US AND State legislatures with a supermajority), they included these words in the Tenth Amendment:

"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."

On the other side stood Washington and the Federalists. They believed strongly in a centralized, all-powerful government (John Adams actually believed the US needed its own king). Washington's own beliefs regarding the correct interpretation of the Constitution were stated in the circular letter he sent to the governors of the states on the eve of his retirement from public office:

"...to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated ⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions: 

That unless the States will suffer [permit] Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution [Articles of Confederation], everything must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;

That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodged somewhere a Supreme Power [executive] to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.

That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late [recent] proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;

That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly..."

Washington stood for a centralized, all-powerful government, which, according to his letter, required that the People and the States "...forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community." Where the Bill of Rights reserved the majority of powers to the People and the States, Washington called on both entities to concede more of those powers and authorities to the federal government whenever the legislature called upon them to do so. To resist such a request or to take steps to limit (or diminish) the supreme authority of the federal government was a crime that "...will merit the bitterest execration [hatred and contempt] and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country."  In other words, the Tenth Amendment was to be ignored in favor of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution.  It was Washington who declared that revolution as a means of changing a tyrannical government was no longer an option since the founding of our republic:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The meaning was clear: revolting against a monarchy, as HE had done, was a good thing, but the AMENDMENT was the only proper way to effect change in a republic.  By taking revolution off the table as a legitimate means of changing a government that had become so corrupt that it could not be changed by means of legislation or amendments, he also nullified the Second Amendment - which was intended by Jefferson and Madison to be a safeguard against a corrupt and tyrannical government.  Sam Adams, in the aftermath of the failed rebellion led by Shay, was even more blunt in his opinion of revolting against a republic:

"In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Again, it was justified when THEY finally resorted to revolution; for anyone else, revolution constitutes treason.  The federalist understanding of the Constitution nullifies the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to bear arms for anything but hunting.

And since Washington was the first President of the US, who also appointed the first Supreme Court justices, the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution is the one that became the norm for the government. It is the understanding under which our legislature and the President operate to this day, and it is this hijacked interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to confiscate more of the rights that were Constitutionally enumerated to the PEOPLE whenever the urge hits, all in the name of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and national security.

No, the problem we face today is the direct result of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution that was institutionalized by none other than George Washington himself.  That our nation's capitol is named for Washington is appropriate; his interpretation of the Constitution set the stage for what is happening today.  The resulting mess is his to own forever.