Okay, I'll go ahead and call it: Ron Paul wins the poll! The vast majority voted for Dr. No, and their voices have been heard.
A new poll will be up before the day is out.
Thank you, one and all.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
American Brownshirts
It has come to my attention that there is a bill called the Universal National Service Act of 2007 that would require two years of participation in a branch of uniformed service or national civil defense organization for anyone between the ages of 18 and 42.
This bill was proposed last year, but shelved. Interest in the bill has heightened in recent weeks, following the proposition of “a civilian security corps” by Obama. While he hasn't commented on the bill, to my knowledge, it would appear as though he is in favor of the bill.
The proposition of a Civilian Security Corps would just wind-up being an American version of the Brownshirts, especially under the control of Obama. The idea of a Draft is just plain ol' un-American.
This bill was proposed last year, but shelved. Interest in the bill has heightened in recent weeks, following the proposition of “a civilian security corps” by Obama. While he hasn't commented on the bill, to my knowledge, it would appear as though he is in favor of the bill.
The proposition of a Civilian Security Corps would just wind-up being an American version of the Brownshirts, especially under the control of Obama. The idea of a Draft is just plain ol' un-American.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Energy Non-Crisis to Kill Dollar
Read full story at Infowars.
Lindsey Williams, due to death threats earlier this year, had pulled himself from the public eye.
Now, he has decided to once again share his insider knowledge with his fellow Americans.
From Bob Chapman's International Forecaster:
At the urging of Dr. Stanley Monteith of Radio Liberty, [Lindsey Williams] called back the same oil executive who had warned him about the danger he would be in if he continued to disseminate certain information to ask if in fact there was any information that he could in fact convey to the public without upsetting the powers that be.
"Basically, Mr. Williams was told that over the next twelve months, from mid-2008 to mid-2009, (1) news of super giant oil fields, ready to produce, would be announced for two locations, in the Northern Slopes of Russia and in Indonesia, which oil fields would together contain more oil reserves than the entire Middle East; (2) that this news would drive oil prices down to $50/barrel; (3) that OPEC countries, especially in the Middle East, would be bankrupted by this price decrease; (4) that this would cause the financing of our foreign trade and current account deficits through purchases of treasury paper by foreign nations with their surplus oil profits to collapse, leading to the collapse of the dollar; (5) that the collapse of the dollar would cause unprecedented financial strife and turmoil in the US, and that it would take many years for the US to recover from this financial debacle; (6) that they (big oil) support John McCain for President; and (7) that US domestic oil reserves would never be tapped, and that any legislation which might allow domestic reserves to be tapped would not be allowed to pass, leaving the US dependent on foreign oil forever."
Within minutes of learning of the true nature of the "Energy Crisis", my attention drifted towards a television screen with a news anchor talking about what we should "really" be doing about the Oil Crisis.
I jest not, he seemed to me like a clown. He literally looked and sounded like some sort of comical clown.
This problem will not be fixed until my nation turns from its wicked ways, returns to God, and becomes a Republic once again.
Lindsey Williams, due to death threats earlier this year, had pulled himself from the public eye.
Now, he has decided to once again share his insider knowledge with his fellow Americans.
From Bob Chapman's International Forecaster:
At the urging of Dr. Stanley Monteith of Radio Liberty, [Lindsey Williams] called back the same oil executive who had warned him about the danger he would be in if he continued to disseminate certain information to ask if in fact there was any information that he could in fact convey to the public without upsetting the powers that be.
"Basically, Mr. Williams was told that over the next twelve months, from mid-2008 to mid-2009, (1) news of super giant oil fields, ready to produce, would be announced for two locations, in the Northern Slopes of Russia and in Indonesia, which oil fields would together contain more oil reserves than the entire Middle East; (2) that this news would drive oil prices down to $50/barrel; (3) that OPEC countries, especially in the Middle East, would be bankrupted by this price decrease; (4) that this would cause the financing of our foreign trade and current account deficits through purchases of treasury paper by foreign nations with their surplus oil profits to collapse, leading to the collapse of the dollar; (5) that the collapse of the dollar would cause unprecedented financial strife and turmoil in the US, and that it would take many years for the US to recover from this financial debacle; (6) that they (big oil) support John McCain for President; and (7) that US domestic oil reserves would never be tapped, and that any legislation which might allow domestic reserves to be tapped would not be allowed to pass, leaving the US dependent on foreign oil forever."
Within minutes of learning of the true nature of the "Energy Crisis", my attention drifted towards a television screen with a news anchor talking about what we should "really" be doing about the Oil Crisis.
I jest not, he seemed to me like a clown. He literally looked and sounded like some sort of comical clown.
This problem will not be fixed until my nation turns from its wicked ways, returns to God, and becomes a Republic once again.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Fit for Service
These quotes were just too large for the sidebar, so I decided to just go ahead and post them.
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, 'just men who will rule in the fear of God.'
The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.
If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."
-----------------------------------------------------
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character.
It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine.
They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government.
When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
~Noah Webster
Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both, in my mind, are fit to serve as the President of the United States of America.
Maybe they will combine forces in the next election, if there will be one; you never know.
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, 'just men who will rule in the fear of God.'
The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.
If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."
-----------------------------------------------------
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character.
It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine.
They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government.
When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
~Noah Webster
Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both, in my mind, are fit to serve as the President of the United States of America.
Maybe they will combine forces in the next election, if there will be one; you never know.
Monday, July 21, 2008
U.S. Flag Revision
Barack Hussein Obama, presumptive Socialist-Swine Party nominee, has released his revised edition of the U.S. Flag. It is to be called: "Stars and Stripes We Can Believe In".
The flag sports sixty stars, the same number Barack alluded to in May of this year.
He said, "...it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last fifteen months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty seven states, with, I think, one more to go. Alaska and Hawai'i, I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
Well, that makes sixty, alright!
"For the first time, I'm truly proud of my flag."
[NOTE: Obama obviously made a slip of the tongue and knows that there are only fifty states, but in the interests of making fun, I created this flag; credit should go where credit is due.]
Sunday, July 20, 2008
It's Only Natural
“And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” ~Acts 17:26
My faith is Christian, my book is the Bible; no more is necessary for daily life than this.
Many are confused about the meaning of the term “race”; the modern usage usually refers to the “color” of the skin. But, the original usage referred more generally to what might be called “people groups”. For example, one might speak of the Irish race as opposed to the “white” race, with the implication of both general appearance and national character.
It is natural for a nation of people to share common traits such as appearance and a general value system. It only makes sense.
When a nation doesn't maintain an all around consensus of these commonalities, a division is made, usually resulting in war or other cultural issues.
What we have in America isn’t natural; there are too many cultures here for one nation.
While the problem is helped by the decentralization of power in government, it isn’t solved.
It has gotten to the point where one cannot even read a simple product label at the store because he can’t find his own language. That’s a serious problem.
One nation should have one culture; every empire that has had more than one culture has fallen.
The divisions among nationalities are natural as well as biblical; God destroyed the tower of Babel because of man’s desire for world government: one tongue, one people, one government.
National divisions are God inspired.
It is natural for immigrants from their own land to come to another land and adopt the culture, but it is not natural for ten, twenty, or thirty different cultures to exist in one land.
My culture is American, my race is American, my creed is American.
I accept no other nation’s culture. This is natural.
My skin is not “white”, for if it was, I would be in the hospital.
All men are different shades of brown. All men. This is a scientific fact.
Some darker, some lighter; I'm somewhere between.
It matters not to me what shade a person is.
The answer to our cultural problems is not a “colorblind society”, but a Christian society; the kind of society spoken of by the founders of our country, and the Founder of my faith.
Generations ago, my ancestors came from the Celtic Nations, and over a couple hundred years came to be settled in the Ozarks region of America.
Over time, generation after generation, gene pool mixed with gene pool, and a set of characteristics and traits became that of my entire family. Black hair, blue eyes, these are just some of the family traits.
Why, I’ve got English, Irish, Spanish, Norwegian, Scottish, and Cherokee blood coursing through my veins, and still, I am of one blood.
Many nations, one blood.
But none of it matters, I have no sense of pride or prejudice.
I’m a Christian American, that's all that I am, and that's all that matters.
I don’t really care for anything other than my God, my family and my country; little more, nothing less.
Political Correctness and the promotion of race has ripped my nation apart, and I do not wish to further discuss my personal "race" or people group, and I do not wish for others on this blog to discuss their "race" or people group. The only mention of "race" you will see here is how our enemies use it against us as Christians and Americans.
We are all descendants of Adam.
I don't care what color a person is, I really don't.
I don't subscribe to that kind of group mentality, as it takes away from one's sense of individualism.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." ~Ephesians 6:12
This is the object of my faith, and this is the object of this blog.
My faith is Christian, my book is the Bible; no more is necessary for daily life than this.
Many are confused about the meaning of the term “race”; the modern usage usually refers to the “color” of the skin. But, the original usage referred more generally to what might be called “people groups”. For example, one might speak of the Irish race as opposed to the “white” race, with the implication of both general appearance and national character.
It is natural for a nation of people to share common traits such as appearance and a general value system. It only makes sense.
When a nation doesn't maintain an all around consensus of these commonalities, a division is made, usually resulting in war or other cultural issues.
What we have in America isn’t natural; there are too many cultures here for one nation.
While the problem is helped by the decentralization of power in government, it isn’t solved.
It has gotten to the point where one cannot even read a simple product label at the store because he can’t find his own language. That’s a serious problem.
One nation should have one culture; every empire that has had more than one culture has fallen.
The divisions among nationalities are natural as well as biblical; God destroyed the tower of Babel because of man’s desire for world government: one tongue, one people, one government.
National divisions are God inspired.
It is natural for immigrants from their own land to come to another land and adopt the culture, but it is not natural for ten, twenty, or thirty different cultures to exist in one land.
My culture is American, my race is American, my creed is American.
I accept no other nation’s culture. This is natural.
My skin is not “white”, for if it was, I would be in the hospital.
All men are different shades of brown. All men. This is a scientific fact.
Some darker, some lighter; I'm somewhere between.
It matters not to me what shade a person is.
The answer to our cultural problems is not a “colorblind society”, but a Christian society; the kind of society spoken of by the founders of our country, and the Founder of my faith.
Generations ago, my ancestors came from the Celtic Nations, and over a couple hundred years came to be settled in the Ozarks region of America.
Over time, generation after generation, gene pool mixed with gene pool, and a set of characteristics and traits became that of my entire family. Black hair, blue eyes, these are just some of the family traits.
Why, I’ve got English, Irish, Spanish, Norwegian, Scottish, and Cherokee blood coursing through my veins, and still, I am of one blood.
Many nations, one blood.
But none of it matters, I have no sense of pride or prejudice.
I’m a Christian American, that's all that I am, and that's all that matters.
I don’t really care for anything other than my God, my family and my country; little more, nothing less.
Political Correctness and the promotion of race has ripped my nation apart, and I do not wish to further discuss my personal "race" or people group, and I do not wish for others on this blog to discuss their "race" or people group. The only mention of "race" you will see here is how our enemies use it against us as Christians and Americans.
We are all descendants of Adam.
I don't care what color a person is, I really don't.
I don't subscribe to that kind of group mentality, as it takes away from one's sense of individualism.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." ~Ephesians 6:12
This is the object of my faith, and this is the object of this blog.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Lex or Rex?
The Article Six, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause.
The text is as follows: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Now, I admit that the wording is a bit confusing in places, but I used a dictionary (Thank you, Webster!), and I deciphered the lawyer talk.
It means, in a nutshell, that any law made along the guidelines of the Constitution is to be obeyed as the Supreme Law of the Land. However, any law contrary to the Constitution is not law, and is effectively null and void. This is not my interpretation, this is Webster’s.
The first thing that comes to my mind when discussing “illegal laws” is the idea of “Roadblock Checkpoints”. These are roadblocks, set up by local law enforcement, that stop absolutely everyone that passes by on that street without reasonable cause; they are then asked for papers, questioned, drug-tested, and usually set free.
These checkpoints are defended as legal, but what does the Supreme law of the Land say?
“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.” ~Fourth Amendment
So:
People are free from unreasonable searches and seizures except by warrant based on probable cause, sworn to by Oath, and describing the things to be searched for and the persons or things to be seized.
Or:
Sheriffs demand identification, question you about where you're coming from and where you're going, in some cases mandatory drug tests are performed, and they decide whether you may or may not continue to your destination, all without any cause whatsoever.
Hmm.
Nope, roadblocks are not Constitutionally lawful. [NULL AND VOID]
The text is as follows: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Now, I admit that the wording is a bit confusing in places, but I used a dictionary (Thank you, Webster!), and I deciphered the lawyer talk.
It means, in a nutshell, that any law made along the guidelines of the Constitution is to be obeyed as the Supreme Law of the Land. However, any law contrary to the Constitution is not law, and is effectively null and void. This is not my interpretation, this is Webster’s.
The first thing that comes to my mind when discussing “illegal laws” is the idea of “Roadblock Checkpoints”. These are roadblocks, set up by local law enforcement, that stop absolutely everyone that passes by on that street without reasonable cause; they are then asked for papers, questioned, drug-tested, and usually set free.
These checkpoints are defended as legal, but what does the Supreme law of the Land say?
“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.” ~Fourth Amendment
So:
People are free from unreasonable searches and seizures except by warrant based on probable cause, sworn to by Oath, and describing the things to be searched for and the persons or things to be seized.
Or:
Sheriffs demand identification, question you about where you're coming from and where you're going, in some cases mandatory drug tests are performed, and they decide whether you may or may not continue to your destination, all without any cause whatsoever.
Hmm.
Nope, roadblocks are not Constitutionally lawful. [NULL AND VOID]
Friday, July 18, 2008
Ideations on the Second Amendment: PART 3
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Many have construed this to say that “people” refers to the “Militia” as opposed to private individuals, but this is a moot point, because the Militia is comprised of individuals;
it is a Citizen's Army.
This is made very clear in the Federalist Papers, where the Militia is defined to be made up of otherwise private individuals; specifically all men aged 18 to 45, to be trained in the use of arms perhaps twice per year. This was so that areas of work that required manpower would not suffer terribly due to military training of working class men.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper Number 29
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion ... in private self-defense…” ~John Adams
"...Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." ~Thomas Paine
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms…” ~Richard Henry Lee
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force far superior to any band of regular troops…” ~Noah Webster
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to not be infringed, then why is the right of the people to keep and bear arms being infringed?
One may not own a gun that fires more than once every time one pulls the trigger; one may not own a gun that isn’t registered with the government; one may not own a gun if he has ADHD, or other “mental illness”.
One may not buy a firearm without a background check, identification cards, and a registration form; as though we need permission to own guns.
If you are found with guns in your car without a concealed carry permit, that’s against the law; or is it?
Article Six, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This unquestionably means that any law not made in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America is null and void. Make of it what you will, but the facts are there.
I’m sure somebody in government already has a scripted line about “what it really means”, but remember the words of Samuel Adams: “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”.
A speaker of plain English needs not to translate plain English, but use a dictionary if you have to.
So, what happened to the Militia? Why isn’t there any drilling going on? Why hasn’t the common man been disciplined in the matters of warfare and defense?
I don’t know! Good question, huh? How will we find the answer?
I’ll post what I find out about the fact that an entire train of thought regarding security by our founding fathers has been completely ignored, but as far as the three part series of Ideations on the Second Amendment is concerned: I rest my case.
Many have construed this to say that “people” refers to the “Militia” as opposed to private individuals, but this is a moot point, because the Militia is comprised of individuals;
it is a Citizen's Army.
This is made very clear in the Federalist Papers, where the Militia is defined to be made up of otherwise private individuals; specifically all men aged 18 to 45, to be trained in the use of arms perhaps twice per year. This was so that areas of work that required manpower would not suffer terribly due to military training of working class men.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper Number 29
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion ... in private self-defense…” ~John Adams
"...Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." ~Thomas Paine
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms…” ~Richard Henry Lee
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force far superior to any band of regular troops…” ~Noah Webster
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to not be infringed, then why is the right of the people to keep and bear arms being infringed?
One may not own a gun that fires more than once every time one pulls the trigger; one may not own a gun that isn’t registered with the government; one may not own a gun if he has ADHD, or other “mental illness”.
One may not buy a firearm without a background check, identification cards, and a registration form; as though we need permission to own guns.
If you are found with guns in your car without a concealed carry permit, that’s against the law; or is it?
Article Six, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This unquestionably means that any law not made in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America is null and void. Make of it what you will, but the facts are there.
I’m sure somebody in government already has a scripted line about “what it really means”, but remember the words of Samuel Adams: “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”.
A speaker of plain English needs not to translate plain English, but use a dictionary if you have to.
So, what happened to the Militia? Why isn’t there any drilling going on? Why hasn’t the common man been disciplined in the matters of warfare and defense?
I don’t know! Good question, huh? How will we find the answer?
I’ll post what I find out about the fact that an entire train of thought regarding security by our founding fathers has been completely ignored, but as far as the three part series of Ideations on the Second Amendment is concerned: I rest my case.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Crisis or Crock?
Before I publish the final installment of my "Ideations on the 2nd Amendment", I think that this is more immediately important. Keep in mind, this was added to You Tube in January of '07
[NOTE: If the screen says "sorry, video no longer available", simply refresh the page.]
This can also be viewed at YouTube.
[NOTE: If the screen says "sorry, video no longer available", simply refresh the page.]
This can also be viewed at YouTube.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Ideations on the 2nd Amendment: PART 2
“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."
Since 9/11, security has been a big deal to all transportation, communication, and governmental outlets.
They’ve even invented a whole new department for it in government: the Department of Homeland Security. So, I guess they’re really scouring the Constitution to see if it gives any nuggets of advice on how to best secure our nation’s wellbeing, huh? A clue: NO!
Why isn't the one governmental department specifically dedicated to security, using the Constitutionally prescribed method of security?
It’s all there, black and white, clear as crystal: the second in a row of ten amendments is little more than one of the most easy-to-read laws that ever flowed from a legislator’s pen. The whole law is one sentence, written in plain English. One cannot find a Federal law written in the 21st century that is easier to read than the Second Amendment.
Shall we “interpret” the possible meanings behind Part 2 of the Second Amendment?
Part 1 is the beginning of the sentence, the subject being “Militia”; Part 2 is clearly pointing out the necessity of a Militia, by stating that a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; Part 3 is the important part, the reason for the law, and it says that the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms (weapons), shall not be infringed (hindered).
I think we’ll dissect Part 2 word by word this time, and who is better at dissecting words than Noah Webster?
Being: conjunction; since, because.
Necessary: adjective; of an inevitable nature, inescapable, logically unavoidable, that cannot be denied without contradiction, determined or produced by the previous condition of things, compulsory, absolutely needed, required.
To: preposition; used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, result, or end.
(I’ll skip “the”. It’s just one of those words.)
Security: noun; the quality or state of being secure, freedom from danger, safety.
(I’ll skip “of” and “a” also.)
Free: adjective; having the legal and political rights of a citizen, enjoying civil and political liberty
State: noun; a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign, the political organization of such a body of people, the operations or concerns of the government of a country.
Now let’s put Part 2 of the Second Amendment “in other words”.
“A well regulated Militia, since it is inevitable and logically unavoidable, is required for the purpose of being secure and free from danger, for the continuation the operations of a Government in a country of free men, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
------------------------------------------------------
Now that my abridged version of the Second amendment has been released, I would like to add that if the true purpose of Government is to secure the rights of the people, and not to eliminate them “for your protection”, then why is the DHS not regulating a Militia? Say, where is that Militia, anyway...?
Check back for Part 3.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Ideations on the 2nd Amendment: PART 1
Those who would not only refrain from exercising their Second Amendment rights but would also try to keep others from exercising it, say that the only people that should own guns are the Police and Military.
Hmm.
Well, the best American response to those people would be in the words of Samuel Adams: “…Go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
I could go on and on about how if we should ban guns because they’re dangerous, then maybe we should ban cars too, but I won’t. I don’t want to put any ideas into their heads.
Shall we see what the Founders warned us concerning those who would have us without arms?
First, let me remind you of the wording of the Supreme Law of the Land: “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.”
I don’t recall, off the top of my head, whose side thinks they benefit from the commas in the Second Amendment, but I can tell you that there are so many commas thrown hither-tither that it looks like they’re just trying to fill in space.
It’s such a little amendment compared to the others.
Anyway, let’s dissect the issue by chopping into three parts:
PART 1: A well regulated Militia.
PART 2: Being necessary to the security of a free State.
PART 3: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 makes reference to an organization called Militia, and the need for it to be well regulated.
Federalist Papers number 29 indicates that the Militia would be, as the word is defined, comprised of the whole people, within certain age limits, for the defense of the public against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with the distinct role of replacing the national army for the common defense.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788.
Also, it is given that the role of training such a group would be given to the respective states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It even states in the Federalist Papers that it is unforeseeable what the future Government might do, so it is necessary to set certain unchangeable guidelines for the future, such as the Second Amendment.
But, I guess we don’t care very much about rule of law, huh?
"Another source of [tyrannical] power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
~Noah Webster
The purpose of the militia was apparently to be a military establishment, comprised of as many men that could hold a firearm, as an all around protector of the people, and to an equal extent, the Constitution.
Hmm.
Well, the best American response to those people would be in the words of Samuel Adams: “…Go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
I could go on and on about how if we should ban guns because they’re dangerous, then maybe we should ban cars too, but I won’t. I don’t want to put any ideas into their heads.
Shall we see what the Founders warned us concerning those who would have us without arms?
First, let me remind you of the wording of the Supreme Law of the Land: “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.”
I don’t recall, off the top of my head, whose side thinks they benefit from the commas in the Second Amendment, but I can tell you that there are so many commas thrown hither-tither that it looks like they’re just trying to fill in space.
It’s such a little amendment compared to the others.
Anyway, let’s dissect the issue by chopping into three parts:
PART 1: A well regulated Militia.
PART 2: Being necessary to the security of a free State.
PART 3: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 makes reference to an organization called Militia, and the need for it to be well regulated.
Federalist Papers number 29 indicates that the Militia would be, as the word is defined, comprised of the whole people, within certain age limits, for the defense of the public against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with the distinct role of replacing the national army for the common defense.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788.
Also, it is given that the role of training such a group would be given to the respective states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It even states in the Federalist Papers that it is unforeseeable what the future Government might do, so it is necessary to set certain unchangeable guidelines for the future, such as the Second Amendment.
But, I guess we don’t care very much about rule of law, huh?
"Another source of [tyrannical] power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
~Noah Webster
The purpose of the militia was apparently to be a military establishment, comprised of as many men that could hold a firearm, as an all around protector of the people, and to an equal extent, the Constitution.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Vindicated!
The unfortunate events that occurred on November 14th of last year sent a grandfather before a grand jury and two Colombians sadly to eternity.
Joe Horn spoke to a 911 dispatcher while he watched his neighbor’s home get ransacked by two illegal aliens. Speaking to the dispatcher, Horn indicated fear and anxiety over the robbery in progress, not knowing when the police were going to arrive to apprehend the felons.
Nearing the end of this nightmare, Horn expressed urgency about the situation, because the burglars were almost ready to escape.
Joe Horn was asked thirteen times not to go outside, but not being one to sit idly by and watch the crime pay off, he grabbed his shotgun and nervously walked outside. His voice can be clearly heard on the 911 tape as he gives a warning: “Move, and you’re dead!”.
The next things heard are three gun blasts and Joe’s voice asking the dispatcher for the squad cars to hurry up and get there, because he downed one of them and the other took off running.
Both of the house thieves died.
Horn said the criminals rushed at him, and this was verified by investigators.
This, however, wasn’t good enough for Civil Rights attorneys, falsely so called.
They, with others, began shouting “Racist!”, because the Colombians had more melanin in their skin than Joe Horn.
Well, welcome to the U.S.S.A! One may not defend his neighbor’s home from burglary without being charged with racism and murder? The two would have made off with two thousand dollars worth of valuables, had this man not stopped them. What if the family was home? They may have been massacred.
The men were part of a local crime ring, it was discovered, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision these men striking again.
This man has been called a vigilante, but what is that supposed to mean?
Does it mean someone that goes around packing heat, looking for litterbugs to persecute?
If it does, we’ve got a lot of badged vigilantes that are waiting to strike.
The point is, the police weren’t there, but an ordinary citizen was. He did exactly what any law enforcement agent would have done in his place. Think about it.
On the 30th day of June, 2008, a Grand Jury decided not to indict Joe Horn. Huzzah!
Joe Horn spoke to a 911 dispatcher while he watched his neighbor’s home get ransacked by two illegal aliens. Speaking to the dispatcher, Horn indicated fear and anxiety over the robbery in progress, not knowing when the police were going to arrive to apprehend the felons.
Nearing the end of this nightmare, Horn expressed urgency about the situation, because the burglars were almost ready to escape.
Joe Horn was asked thirteen times not to go outside, but not being one to sit idly by and watch the crime pay off, he grabbed his shotgun and nervously walked outside. His voice can be clearly heard on the 911 tape as he gives a warning: “Move, and you’re dead!”.
The next things heard are three gun blasts and Joe’s voice asking the dispatcher for the squad cars to hurry up and get there, because he downed one of them and the other took off running.
Both of the house thieves died.
Horn said the criminals rushed at him, and this was verified by investigators.
This, however, wasn’t good enough for Civil Rights attorneys, falsely so called.
They, with others, began shouting “Racist!”, because the Colombians had more melanin in their skin than Joe Horn.
Well, welcome to the U.S.S.A! One may not defend his neighbor’s home from burglary without being charged with racism and murder? The two would have made off with two thousand dollars worth of valuables, had this man not stopped them. What if the family was home? They may have been massacred.
The men were part of a local crime ring, it was discovered, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision these men striking again.
This man has been called a vigilante, but what is that supposed to mean?
Does it mean someone that goes around packing heat, looking for litterbugs to persecute?
If it does, we’ve got a lot of badged vigilantes that are waiting to strike.
The point is, the police weren’t there, but an ordinary citizen was. He did exactly what any law enforcement agent would have done in his place. Think about it.
On the 30th day of June, 2008, a Grand Jury decided not to indict Joe Horn. Huzzah!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
In Their Own Words
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ~David Rockefeller
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." ~David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." ~From The National Educator, K.M. Heaton
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." ~Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.
"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order." ~Adolph Hitler
"Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . . [This is compassionate liberalism.]" ~Bernard Shaw, in his Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928
"The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?" ~H.G. Wells, The New World Order 1939
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders." ~President George Bush, 1991
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." ~Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." ~Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." ~David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." ~From The National Educator, K.M. Heaton
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." ~Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.
"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order." ~Adolph Hitler
"Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . . [This is compassionate liberalism.]" ~Bernard Shaw, in his Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928
"The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?" ~H.G. Wells, The New World Order 1939
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders." ~President George Bush, 1991
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." ~Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." ~Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Websites That Make This One Possible
