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/

Administration Suing Wisconsin Company For Requiring Employees To Be Able To Speak English….

"… the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group," Administration sues Wisconsin company. 

No one is denying an individual the right to speak their own language while at work, but the ability to speak english is essential in most companies in order to facilitate communication between the employee and the employer.  

This action, however, appears to be part of the administration's "job creation" package.  Every company employing non-english speakers will have no choice but to employ interpreters for every language spoken by their employees, as well as print multi-language copies of all employment documents (applications, employee handbooks, etc.), in order to preserve their "civil rights.

"...But we are equally opposed to any discrimination against or for a man because of his creed. We demand that all CITIZENS, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair treatment in every way; that all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them.
The mighty tide of immigration to our shores has brought in its train much of good and much of evil; and whether the good or the evil shall predominate depends mainly on whether these newcomers do or do not throw themselves heartily into our national life, cease to be Europeans, and become Americans like the rest of us. More than a third of the people of the Northern States are of foreign birth or parentage. An immense number of them have become completely Americanized, and these stand on exactly the same plane as the descendants of any Puritan, Cavalier, or Knickerbocker among us, and do their full and honorable share of the nation’s work. But where immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, do not heartily and in good faith throw in their lot with us, but cling to the speech, the customs, the ways of life, and the habits of thought of the Old World which they have left, they thereby harm both themselves and us. If they remain alien elements, unassimilated, and with interests separate from ours, they are mere obstructions to the current of our national life, and, moreover, can get no good from it themselves. In fact, though we ourselves also suffer from their perversity, it is they who really suffer most. It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from europe, the sooner he goes back there the better… From his own standpoint, it is beyond all question the wise thing for the immigrant to become thoroughly Americanized. Moreover, from our standpoint, we have a right to demand it. We freely extend the hand of welcome and of good-fellowship to every man, no matter what his creed or birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed become so…," Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, True Americanism (emphasis added).

Michael Bloomberg: "...when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in…"

A surprise is awaiting Michael Bloomberg.  In a recent interview he said that, because of his work to implement national gun control, stop smoking and fight obesity, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html?src=twr&_r=0

Mr. Bloomberg, God's Word has a few things to say on that subject.

First, your works mean nothing in the greater scheme of things: "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment,"  Isaiah 64:6

Second, they earn you no special dispensation or favor with the God whose existence you only notionally acknowledge: "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot," 1 Peter 1:18-19.

In fact, the Bible says that your billions, which you are now using to try to buy your way into Heaven, will be a witness against you: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.  Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you," James 5:1-6.  This is not a statement against ALL wealth; there are certainly wealthy people who have used their fortunes for the glory of God.

Finally, you WILL stop to be "interviewed," and you WILL be forced to acknowledge the existence and supremacy of Yahweh:  "For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil," 2 Corinthians 5:10, "...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;  for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God," Romans 14:10-12.

This is a warning AND an invitation, not just to Mr. Bloomberg, but to every person who has yet to come to the realization that they cannot do it on their own.  We cannot buy or work our way into Heaven.  What is our individual fortune in comparison to the One who owns it all in the first place?  And what "righteousness" can we offer to the One who is the definition of holiness and righteousness?  "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus," Romans 3:21-26.

Administration Puts The Nation's Schools On Notice...

"Attorney General Eric Holder called upon the nation’s school districts Wednesday to rethink “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that he said disproportionately punish minorities and push too many students into the justice system.

“Alarming numbers of young people are suspended, expelled or even arrested for relatively minor transgressions like school uniform violations, schoolyard fights or showing 'disrespect' by laughing in class,” Holder said during a speech in Baltimore.

Holder’s remarks accompanied the release Wednesday of new federal guidance from the departments of Justice and Education pressing schools to adopt disciplinary policies that are “fair, nondiscriminatory, and effective.”

The guidance lays out the parameters of punishment as governed by federal civil rights protections, alternatives to exclusionary discipline and a comprehensive list of regulations on the books in every state," http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/194790-holder-school-discipline-racially-biased-overly-harsh#ixzz2qPkCWLff 

 Holder's call originates with the executive order issued by the President in July, 2012, called the "White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans," which demands race-based disciplinary policies in schools, permitting african-american students to engage in behaviors that would result in disciplinary action if committed by non-minority students:

"EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, to restore the country to its role as the global leader in education, to strengthen the Nation by improving educational outcomes for African Americans of all ages, and to help ensure that all African Americans receive an education that properly prepares them for college, productive careers, and satisfying lives, it is hereby ordered as follows…

…. African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY EXPERIENCE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND REFERRALS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION. African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma, AND AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES ALSO EXPERIENCE DISPARATE RATES OF INCARCERATION.

(iii) decreasing the disproportionate number of referrals of African American children from general education to special education by addressing the root causes of the referrals AND ERADICATING DISCRIMINATORY REFERRALS;

(iv) implementing successful and innovative education reform strategies and practices in America's public schools to ensure that African American students receive a rigorous and well-rounded education in safe and healthy environments, and have access to high-level, rigorous course work and support services that will prepare them for college, a career, and civic participation;

(v) ensuring that all African American students have comparable access to the resources necessary to obtain a high-quality education, including effective teachers and school leaders, in part by supporting efforts to improve the recruitment, preparation, development, and retention of successful African American teachers and school leaders and other effective teachers and school leaders responsible for the education of African American students;

(vi) reducing the dropout rate of African American students and helping African American students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, IN PART BY PROMOTING A POSITIVE SCHOOL CLIMATE THAT DOES NOT RELY ON METHODS THAT RESULT IN DISPARATE USE OF DISCIPLINARY TOOLS, and by supporting successful and innovative dropout prevention and recovery strategies that better engage African American youths in their learning, help them catch up academically, and provide those who have left the educational system with pathways to reentry…," all caps added for emphasis.

The full text of this executive order that mandates racially-based disciplinary policies that favor african-american students and requires schools to accept levels of unacceptable behaviors from african-american students that would be disciplined if committed by students of other races/ethnicities can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../...

In short, the Obama EO and Holder's remarks are an effort to enshrine Paul Butler's principles of race-based jury nullification (in which he states that black jurors have a moral obligation to acquit black offenders whom they know, based on the evidence, to be guilty of a given crime, in an effort to keep more black males in their home communities) in the public schools. The problem with this line of thinking is that it forces the affected community to resign themselves to a reality that accepts a level of lawlessness, violence, or other socially unacceptable behaviors as a normal part of the daily experience if that is what it takes to keep more blacks in the particular community.

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. 

MICHIGAN PASSES ABORTION OPT-OUT!!!

By a vote of 62-46 in the House, and 27-11 in the Senate, Michigan has passed the abortion opt-out!!! It failed to achieve a 2/3 majority by just a few votes, so it goes into effect 90 days after the close of this legislative session instead of taking immediate effect.

This vote makes Michigan the 24th state to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage, meaning that women who desire such coverage must elect to receive it and pay for it themselves, instead of forcing EVERY insurance customer to pay for a medical procedure that is reprehensible morally and Biblically.

THANK YOU, LORD!!!

The Graphic Says It All...

"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.

Potter Park Zoo in Violation of ADA and Michigan State Civil Rights/Disability laws...

We are going to war. 

We took our son to Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, MI, this afternoon (07/21/13) for his birthday. When we got to the entrance, they would not permit us to enter the zoo with our son's autism assistance dog without first requiring proof of certification as an assistance dog, as well as proof of all immunizations being up to date. Then, after verifying all of that, we would have had to be accompanied by a guide who would tell us where we could and could not go in the park. The only other option offered was to leave our son's assistance dog in our vehicle - and it was a warm day today. We were given a copy of the park's policy only after we were making our way back to the parking lot.

Now, we like Potter Park Zoo. It is a wonderful facility. 

It also happens to be PUBLICLY OWNED/FUNDED facility - meaning that they must be in full compliance with both federal and state civil rights/disability laws. The ADA specifically states that their policy is illegal, as demonstrated in the revised ADA requirements for service animals:

"WHERE SERVICE ANIMALS ARE ALLOWED

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go…

INQUIRIES, EXCLUSIONS, CHARGES, AND OTHER SPECIFIC RULES RELATED TO SERVICE ANIMALS

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.  Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises  nless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence…

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals."

(Source: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

I tried to explain what both Michigan disability laws and the ADA have to say about this, but they insisted that the park's policy was the primary consideration - regardless of the requirements of the law.

I am at war. I want to make clear that I do not hold the admissions or security employees responsible for what happened. However, I will have some things to say to the zoo's policy makers. To that end I will be contacting media, legislators, and anyone else I can think of until Potter Park Zoo brings its policies in line with the ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. The security guard with whom I spoke, who is also the father of a special needs child, told me that the park has done this many times over the years.  We have taken our son's assistance dog to Boulder Ridge Wildlife Park in Grand Ledge, MI, and to John Ball Zoo in Grand Rapids, MI, without any trouble whatsoever, so this is a first for us.

To say that our son was disappointed would be an understatement. He doesn't usually voice his feelings in his own words; he did so tonight.

***     UPDATE     ***

Autism Assistance Dog Turned Away From Zoo

We are thanking the Lord for the outcome with Potter Park Zoo. The zoo is reviewing and will be re-writing their service animal policy to bring it in line with ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. It has essentially been acknowledged that the chances of a certified, disciplined, controlled, inoculated service animal outside the enclosure of zoo animals passing on disease to those animals is essentially non-existent. And when you stop to think that zoo animals are in constant, close contact with rodents, birds, and other carriers of harmful organisms that actually go in to the enclosures, the argument really didn't hold up.

We received a call from the director of the zoo just before the broadcast apologizing for the zoo's refusal to allow Bryce into the park and for the policies that violate the ADA, specifically those that require patrons to provide documentation of a service animal's certification and health record. They have assured us that we will be contacted when their policies have been re-written, and they have invited us back to the park.

Finally, we would like to thank Joe LaFurgey of WOOD TV for the role he and his camera man played in this. Thank you for your time, effort, and the quality of your report. You have helped open the doors of this zoo to patrons who would otherwise be denied entrance.

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

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.