A Quote by Samuel Adams

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."


Please have a contemplative and prayerful Independence Day.

Jesus "Challenges" Catholics

An interesting compilation by a Catholic priest of things he always seems to want to do or believe, but Jesus seems to want him to do or believe something else. Take a look at it, as it's rather thought-provoking.

I've arranged my own compilation along those same lines, also from the point of view of a Catholic, but with a slightly different angle:

I want to call my priest "Father," and He says, "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

I want to pray to God through the saints and their statues, and He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

I want to be saved by living a good life, and He says, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

I want to believe only the Pope is God's personal vicar and holy representative on Earth, and He says, "There is no respect of persons with God."

I want to call Mary the 'Mother of God', and He says, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

I want to do all of these things anyway, because they are all long-standing traditions in my Church, and He says, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

Pondering the Memorare and Consecration to St. Joseph and Mary

"O Mary, Virgin most powerful and Mother of mercy, Queen of Heaven and Refuge of sinners, we consecrate ourselves to thine Immaculate Heart." ~Catholic "Consecration to Mary"

Oh, nothing wrong with that, right?

"Remember, O most chaste spouse of the Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who implored your help and sought your intercession were left unassisted. Full of confidence in your power I fly unto you and beg your protection. Despise not O Guardian of the Redeemer my humble supplication, but in your bounty, hear and answer me. Amen." ~Catholic "Memorare to St. Joseph"

Oh yeah, it's totally scriptural! Honest!

But wait, there's more!

"O dearest St. Joseph, I consecrate myself to your honor and give myself to you, that you may always be my father, my protector and my guide in the way of salvation. Obtain for me a greater purity of heart and fervent love of the interior life. After your example may I do all my actions for the greater glory of God, in union with the Divine Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. O Blessed St. Joseph, pray for me, that I may share in the peace and joy of your holy death. Amen." ~Catholic "Act of Consecration to St. Joseph"

That is completely in keeping with God's Word... honest! Except a few things:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~John 14:6

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." ~Matthew 23:9

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." ~Galatians 3:22

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." ~Matthew 22:32

"He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err." ~Mark 12:27

And, about the whole "Queen of Heaven" title:

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." ~Jeremiah 7:18

Illegals Won't Get Coverage, Eh?

"President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

'Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,' Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. 'That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.'

Mr. Obama added, 'If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.'"

~Washington Times

So, when Obama was calling anyone who says illegals will be covered is a liar, and Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!", the outrage over the latter statement was... astroturf? Apparently, because Obama is admittedly planning to legalize the illegals for the purpose of covering them under Obamacare.

Mr. President, you lie!

Constitution Day

"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation."
~John C. Calhoun

It is a little noticed distinction, in this day and generation, that there is a grand separation of powers, not within the government of the United States, but a separation of that government and the nation. The bonds between the two are inherently dissoluble, as nations will outlast and alter their governments, likewise a government its people. So it is that we were not given a national government, of the nation, but a federal government, of sovereign states.

"The States are nations." ~Daniel Webster

The nations created their states, including the legislatures of those states, and these formed a union with each other, centered and controlled by an impartial document, a Constitution, which could only be changed or amended by the states; the people are governed thereby only as far as they consent to be governed.

"... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the governed..."
~U.S. Declaration of Independence

The seats of power within this federal union have corrupted their powers, subverted their contracts, and subsequently waged war on the American people. These dastards know of their own treachery, as they took an oath to support the Constitution; why remind them of this in letters and phone calls? Would we visit a murderer in prison to tell him that he killed someone? (As though he didn't know.)



Continuous "Tea Parties" are in no wise in keeping with the spirit or demeanor of the first "Boston Tea Party", and the lack of response from our legislators shows their futility. Peaceful demonstration has proved useless. Purposeless organizations such as the 9/12 Project serve only to act as steam valves for Americans, letting escape the seething heat of patriotism from the never-boiling pot of resistance.



Our government has been hijacked, like the Vichy French, rendering our Constitution worthless, having no force of law. Of what use is the Constitution if it has no power? How can we have rule of law if the law is subverted daily?

What can we do? Do you not know, my friends? Have we become so disconnected from reality that we do not remember our own history? What is our course? What is our heading?

What will you do without freedom? How much longer will we tolerate the daily injustices of oppression and tyranny? Why stand we here idle? Are we so fearful of the "tempestuous seas of liberty" that we will suffer the indignity and humiliation of despotism? What of the sacrifice of the millions who have died for this freedom we have lost? Have they all died in grand vanity?



Forbid it, Almighty God! I cannot bring myself to believe that our country shall be brought to such an end! Can you not, my compatriots, feel the tension, as though this was all coming to a head, as though this was all about to crescendo in a terrible clash between freedom and oppression? I can feel it.

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

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

~Patrick Henry

MSNBC: "10th Amendment is a Bunch of Baloney!"

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."
~Thomas Jefferson

Unnoticed Hypocrisy at the "You Lie" Speech

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. [Rousing cheers, sustained applause]

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.* ~Obama

*"You lie!" ~Representative Joe Wilson [Boos and faces of anger and shock, soon followed by days of controversy]


So, Obama calling out liars in politics and the private sector (multiple times) is met by cheers, but a congressman calling out a liar (once) is met by jeers?

Ah, Democracy!

The Gospel, According to Charles Barkley

From last year:


(Impolite language at 1:22)

After talking to Wolf Blitzer about his run for Alabama Governor in '14, Charles Barkley explained what he meant by "all conservatives are fake Christians" (my words are in bold):

"They [Christians] want to be judge and jury. Like, I'm for gay marriage, it's none of my business if gay people want to get married. I'm pro-choice. And I think these Christians... first of all, they're supposed to be... they're not supposed to judge other people, but they're the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the blithers out of me... they act like they're Christians, and they're not forgiving at all." ~Charles Barkley

Wolf Blitzer: "So, uh, you're going to get a lot of feedback on this one, Charles."

"They can't do anything to me, I don't work for them." ~Charles Barkley

Wolf Blitzer: "So, you feel comfortable saying all that?"

"I feel very comfortable saying I'm pro-choice, and I'm for gay marriage. Very comfortable." ~Charles Barkley

Wolf Blitzer: But, you can't lump all these Conservatives as being "fake"; a lot of them... obviously, most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs."

"Well, they should read the part of the Bible that they're not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn't fit what they want to say." ~Charles Barkley

Okay, let us see what the Bible has to say about Charles Barkley's "gospel":

"...They should read the part of the Bible that they're not supposed to judge other people."


I think he was referencing the following verses:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." ~Romans 14:13

I suppose, though, he didn't read as far as this:

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." ~John 7:24

And, what about this:

"These (Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ~

So, the Bereans were considered "noble" for judging what they were taught of men by reading the scriptures? If no Christian is to judge anyone or anything, how are we to know what is to be considered wrong? How can we "forgive" someone, if we aren't allowed to judge or convict them of wrongdoing? Can there be such a thing as "wrong" if we cannot judge "right" from "wrong"? What would be the purpose of that?

It is only common sense that we ought to judge, righteously, and with the scriptures, what Charles Barkley has to say, and what anyone says or does.

Marxism is "Agin' the Book"

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
~Karl Marx

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
~Second Corinthians 9:7

Invisible Empire: A New Tool in the Information War

Found at Tennesee Sons of Liberty. Contains brief footage from Kennedy's assassination, so viewer discretion is advised.



A newcomer to the Information War, Invisible Empire, created by the same people that made Endgame and The Obama Deception, looks to be a very informational and interesting chronicling of our times and how we got here. This preview contains much of a speech by John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who was, I believe, our last true President.

In this Information War, there are many selfless men who have placed their lives and fortunes in harm's way to help our side win, which is the side of goodness and humanity; I feel there is no such thing as a "small part" in this InfoWar. These are the "InfoWarriors".

I am a Christian, and am not so much required as I am compelled by my Faith to warn and help direct my fellow Christians and fellow man toward Saving Knowledge. I am as incapable of saving as I am incapable of leading to that end, as I can merely help. Wretchedly as I do this, I try.

I would see a person as a miserable creature, lower than dust, if they did not grab a man by the arm who did not see the bus speeding down the road, or did not warn that family next door, who had no means of communication, that a tornado had just touched down nearby.

So, too, would I hold equally as miserable a creature that slapped the helping hand off of his arm, or laughed at the man that warned of imminent danger, who, not caring to save his own family, would rather not entertain such an "impossibility".

I make no career of warning the masses; perhaps I should, but I do not. I see well-versed men taking up that role, putting aside their daily lives and lessening their time with their families; being so wrapped-up in saving our nation that they hardly have a life left for themselves. I help these men disseminate information when I can, this blog being a tool of that, and I ask you to do the same.

There was a time, during our country's beginnings, when men would drop their plows and pocketbooks and sign up to fight for a season while their country was at war. Some signed on with the Regulars as a permanent arm of military might; had every man joined the Regulars, though, there wouldn't have been men left at home to create a cultivated, well-kept, plenteous country worth the fight.

I am no InfoWarrior; perhaps, though, I am an InfoMilitiaman.

Why not investigate what you do not know to be fact? Why, instead of saying, "There is no 'New World Order'," do you not look into it for yourself? Why, instead of listening to men on TV tell you to believe or not believe something because you should trust them, do you not question that trust and investigate their claims?

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ~Acts 17:11

Thomas Jefferson on Standing Armies

The following quotes are all from Thomas Jefferson at various times and occasions:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." -1789

"I do not like the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." -1787

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." -1801

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." -1801

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." -1776
(Found in a draft of the Virginia Constitution.)

I would like to note that the idea of the U.S. not having a standing army, at least today, is as foreign to us as gun control would be to Jefferson. What was Jefferson's idea of the structure of our national defense? The following quotes should explain:

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." -1803

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." -1801

"A militia so organized that its effective portions can be called to any point in the Union, or volunteers instead of them to serve a sufficient time, are means which may always be ready yet never preying on our resources until actually called into use. They will maintain the public interests while a more permanent force shall be in course of preparation. But much will depend on the promptitude with which these means can be brought into activity. If war be forced upon us in spite of our long and vain appeals to the justice of nations, rapid and vigorous movements in its outset will go far toward securing us in its course and issue, and toward throwing its burdens on those who render necessary the resort from reason to force." -1806

"Militia do well for hasty enterprises but cannot be relied on for lengthy service and out of their own country." -1787

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." -1811

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them." -1801

"Every rational citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." -1786

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." -1799

I would say, in my interpretation of his words, that he almost overstated his view that there should be no standing army, but there should always be a trained militia - an armed citizenry, comprising the whole of the people; and that, in time of war, the U.S. would then begin actively raising "regulars" - Federally trained troops. But, a Federal navy would have a constant presence on our coasts, and this would be increased in time of war.

This fits well with the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is my opinion that we have strayed quite far from our country's founders' intent when it comes to our military and defense policies.

Thomas Jefferson on the Draft

"In this country, [a draught from the militia] ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions."

~Thomas Jefferson

Walter Cronkite's World Politics, in His Own Words

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.

To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen."

~Walter Cronkite, 1999

O, We Privileged Few

According to this news report about public housing in Missouri, "...the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects."

"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?

A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?

This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.

"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." ~Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson

I have carried myself back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, I have recollected the spirit manifested in the debates, and I have conformed to the probable meaning in which it was passed.

And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.

Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.

I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:

"It's a privelige.  Most of everything you have and do is not a right... Did anyone in Emporia actually finish school?"

This is the product of over one hundred years of compromising our standards and rights to appease tyrants and their misled progeny. The National Rifle Association, for instance, prides itself on compromise, and its members never question the fact that compromise includes "giving-in" from both sides of an argument.

I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.

Thomas Jefferson on the Effects of the Declaration of Independence

"May it be to the world, what I believe
it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all),
the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish
ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves,
and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form
which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded
exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened,
or opening, to the rights of man."

~Thomas Jefferson

Independence Day - The Declaration

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."

~John Hancock

Thomas Jefferson's America

2nd of July

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore."

Government Run Medcine?

What would Jefferson say about such a thing?

"If the people let government decide
what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

~Thomas Jefferson

We Shall Soon Want Bread

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread."
~Thomas Jefferson

These are prophesied times.

HR 2749 will give power to Washington to micromanage our food producers, something the Constitution doesn't give them power to do. And we all know how well our Congress does at managing things.

A brief lesson in American civics: the U.S. Constitution all inclusively lists the things Congress may regulate and legislate. Food production is not one of them.