“The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association supports the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens’. We recognize the recent increase in violence and mass shootings have raised questions relating to the sale and possession of firearms. The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association further believes that we must hold offenders responsible, not law abiding citizens.
The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association does support enforcement of the existing gun laws and the strengthening of current back ground checks including identifying individuals with mental health issues. The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association does not support legislation that restricts current gun possession or sales to our citizens that weakens our 2nd Amendment rights.
Thanks to Johnson County Sheriff, Jim Dorney, for the heads up!
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood” James Madison
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy of monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
“Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow.” Benjamin Franklin
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” Benjamin Franklin
There is a lot of discussion about State’s Rights and whether so many of the policies and regulations that are being proposed on the Federal Scale are in violation of the States Rights. Personally I think that many of them are, but one of the worst cases is the Federal Involvement in our schools. I think that a large portion of our educators, legislators, and laypeople are unaware that legally the federal government has no right to force any standards upon the schools. They may suggest, offer money for the policies that they want implemented, but they have no legal authority to force states to follow these standards.
How much influence do we want a federal government to have? When do we stop letting them force by bullying and threatening the schools in order to get policies in place that go totally against our moral values and common sense? We have in power an administration that uses bullying, threats, and even suing states in order to force their will upon the people of this country. How far do they go before it becomes treasonous? When you are in the process of destroying the very thing that you took an oath to protect, when does it become a violation? I am not saying that this leadership should be tried for treason, I am saying when are the people of this country and leaders in the separate states going to wake up and realize that what is being done to them is in violation of the Constitution and that they do have other options that to just answer the lawsuits in court and depend upon a Federal Court that may be just a guilty of violating their own oath of office.
Our founders intent was for the States to trump the Federal, for the Federal to be an arm of the State to promote the welfare of the States and the people. We have let it be turned around where the States are an aterthought and only seem to enjoy rights granted to them by the Federal Government and those are constantly being ignored or whittled away if they don’t fit the desires of whomever is in power at the time.
A DISCOURSE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES–
John C. Calhoun, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun 
If it be possible still to doubt that the several States retained their sovereignty and independence unimpaired, strong additional arguments might be drawn from various other portions of the instrument—especially from the third article, section third, which declares, that— “treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” It might be easily shown that— “the United States” —mean here—as they do everywhere in the constitution—the several States in their confederated character—that treason against them, is treason against their joint sovereignty—and, of course, as much treason against each State, as the act would be against any one of them, in its individual and separate character. But I forbear. Enough has already been said to place the question beyond controversy. Read the entire discourse at Online Library of Liberty!
When the United States of America was formed there were many forms of government that were considered. One of them was a monarchy but this was the very type of governance that they were fleeing. They established a republic in the hopes that this was what would be the best for all the people. Something that would give them all the chance of a future without being under the thumb of rulers that had only their own interests in mind most of the time. They did not want the people to wind up a nation of servants.
And yet here we are. Our leaders have brought us to the very place that we ran away from. The place that many of the founders laid down their lives and fortunes to give us something better. Not only did they sacrifice, but a selfish and self centered nation is in the process of erasing them from the very history that they sacrificed for. They are being repainted as selfish men who had no other desire than to profit for themselves, without any real regard to the true history that shows how much they actually lost in money and life.
The people of this country have given control to a few men and women who lie to them with glib tongues and illusions to make it appear as if they themselves are not responsible for anything and that it is always someone else fault. That if we don’t give them what they want we will be destroy. A constant fear being laid upon our souls as if they are the only thing that stands between us and eternal destruction. And if anyone thinks that I am referring to any particular party here, I am not. Neither of them know how to lead. None of them seem to even understand and care how the country was founded or the sacrifices that were made.
Instead the current generation is so far from the sacrifice as to simply be greedy hogs simply looking for the next way they can profit from our despair. They use fear as a tool and our money to line their own pockets. They lie as fast as they open their mouths and tell anyone and all whatever they think that will get them what they desire. They take no responsibility for their own actions, even when those actions cost the lives of so many good men and women.
The have abdicated their own power for profit, or grabbed power that they have no right to in order to subvert the Constitution and enslave the men and women that they took an oath to protect and defend. They give away our secrets to our enemies, turn their backs on our allies, and destroy our country in so many ways that it is impossible to keep up with. They are constantly imposing new regulations than cripple our economy or stifle business’.
With the stroke of a pen our President declares that abortion must be made available and therefore anyone who doesn’t wish to provide is in the wrong and must pay through the nose. If this were anyone else, forcing their ideas upon some other country, they would and have been declared dictators. And yet somehow because he was elected President those that approve of his actions, go right along, even though the previous President was maligned right and left for doing similar actions.
Since when does two wrongs make a right? Since when is it okay for someone to break the law simply because they are on the other side of the fence? Should we not hold our own leaders to a higher standard than we hold the rest of the world? Since when does it become alright for our guy but not for yours? Evil is evil no matter who commits it. Wrong is wrong no matter what letter comes after their name as in political party.
The people of this country voted for a President!! A man to lead them not a man that they were expected to serve. We voted for a continuation of our county. We were not asked to vote for a monarchy!!!! And yet it seems as if that is what our leaders feel is due them.
When the people of Israel decided that they wanted a King, God warned them of what to expect. It looks an awful lot like what we have right now. The difference is that we didn’t ask for it and it is being forced upon us.
1 Samuel 8
Good News Translation (GNT)
10 Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king everything that the Lord had said to him. 11 “This is how your king will treat you,” Samuel explained. “He will make soldiers of your sons; some of them will serve in his war chariots, others in his cavalry, and others will run before his chariots. 12 He will make some of them officers in charge of a thousand men, and others in charge of fifty men. Your sons will have to plow his fields, harvest his crops, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots. 13 Your daughters will have to make perfumes for him and work as his cooks and his bakers. 14 He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his officials. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your grapes for his court officers and other officials. 16 He will take your servants and your best cattle[a] and donkeys, and make them work for him. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks. And you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that time comes, you will complain bitterly because of your king, whom you yourselves chose, but the Lordwill not listen to your complaints.”
The sermon that Samuel Cooper gave on the day of commencement for the Constitution in 1780 is a truly wonderful read, it you are interested you may find it here:
He truly believed in what was being created in this United States of America and he played his part in teaching the people who followed him. He didn’t shy away and say pastors should stay out of politics. He and so many other pastors of his day were instrumental in shaping the future of this country. Far from thinking that their place was separate, they believed themselves an essential part of the fabric of the country. They probably would be amazed and horrified to find that far from a country that followed the tenets of Biblical Law, we are fast becoming a nation that has no center at all and in fact is just as likely to follow Shariah law. From the Online Library of Liberty we find the following about him and an excerpt from one of his sermons:
The Massachusetts clergyman Samuel Cooper (1725-1783) gave a patriotic sermon in 1780 to celebrate the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. He concludes by urging his listeners to help build “the new city” in America by making the wilderness fruitful, inviting the injured and oppressed to come to America, and to create a country which “breaths” the principles of “peace on earth, and good will towards men”
“… So favourable, through the divine superintendence, is the present situation of the powers in Europe, to the liberties and independence for which we are contending. But as individuals must part with some natural liberties for the sake of the security and advantages of society; the same kind of commutation must take place in the great republic of nations. The rights of kingdoms and states have their bounds; and as in our own establishment we are not likely to find reason, I trust we shall never have an inclination to exceed these bounds, and justly to excite the jealousy and opposition of other nations. It is thus wisdom, moderation and sound policy would connect kingdoms and states for their mutual advantage, and preserve the order and harmony of the world. In all this these free states will find their own security, and rise by natural and unenvied degrees to that eminence, for which, I would fain perswade myself, we are designed.
“It is laudable to lay the foundations of our republicks with extended views. Rome rose to empire because she early thought herself destined for it. The great object was continually before the eyes of her sons: It enlarged and invigorated their minds; it excited their vigilance; it elated their courage, and prepared them to embrace toils and dangers, and submit to every regulation friendly to the freedom and prosperity of Rome. They did great things because they believed themselves capable, and born to do them. They reverenced themselves and their country; and animated with unbounded respect for it, they every day added to its strength and glory. Conquest is not indeed the aim of these rising states; sound policy must ever forbid it: We have before us an object more truly great and honourable. We seem called by heaven to make a large portion of this globe a seat of knowledge and liberty, of agriculture, commerce, and arts, and what is more important than all, of christian piety and virtue. A celebrated British historian observes, if I well remember, that the natural features of America are peculiarly striking. Our mountains, our rivers and lakes have a singular air of dignity and grandeur. May our conduct correspond to the face of our country! At present an immense part of it lies as nature hath left it, and human labour and art have done but little, and brightened only some small specks of a continent that can afford ample means of subsistence to many, many millions of the human race. It remains with us and our posterity, to “make the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the desert blossom as the rose”; to establish the honour and happiness of this new world, as far as it may be justly our own, and to invite the injured and oppressed, the worthy and the good to these shores, by the most liberal governments, by wise political institutions, by cultivating the confidence and friendship of other nations, and by a sacred attention to that gospel that breaths “peace on earth, and good will towards men.” Thus will our country resemble the new city which St. John saw “coming down from God out of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband.” Is there a benevolent spirit on earth, or on high, whom such a prospect would not delight?…
O thou supreme Governor of the world, whose arm hath done great things for us, establish the foundations of this commonwealth, and evermore defend it with the saving strength of thy right hand! Grant that here the divine constitutions of Jesus thy Son may ever be honoured and maintained! Grant that it may be the residence of all private and patriotic virtues, of all that enlightens and supports, all that sweetens and adorns human society, till the states and kingdoms of this world shall be swallowed up in thine own kingdom: In that, which alone is immortal, may we obtain a perfect citizenship, and enjoy in its completion, “the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God![”] And let all the people say, Amen!”
When Noah Webster wrote this public letter to the dissenting members of the Convention of Pennsylvania, published in the Daily Advertiser of New York on the 31 of December, 1787, he could not foresee a time when land owners in the United States of America would be even more restricted in many ways that what they faced at the time in Europe. With the EPA and many other government agencies, we have gone far beyond the restrictions that they faced then. Now we have to have the government approve what we build, what we till and plant, how much dust we are allowed to stir up, and even how we use any water on our property. They can declare it a wetland and fine you or forbid you from using it even if it has no water on it and is surrounded by a subdivision. I wonder what he would say today?
I wonder at his thought at the Constitution that he helped to establish would be perverted in the ways that it has been to become instead of an acclamation of our freedom and rights to a tool being used to limit us from those freedoms and rights? I wonder what he would say to those currently trying to limit our rights to bear arms?
“America” [Noah Webster]
To the DISSENTING MEMBERS of the late Convention Of Pennsylvania.
But to complete the list of unalienable rights, you would insert a clause in your declaration, that every body shall, in good weather, hunt on his own land, and catch fish in rivers that are public property. Here, Gentlemen, you must have exerted the whole force of your genius! Not even the all-important subject of legislating for a worldcan restrain my laughter at this clause! As a supplement to that article of your bill of rights, I would suggest the following restriction:—“That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”—This article is of just as much consequence as the 8th clause of your proposed bill of rights.
But to be more serious, Gentlemen, you must have had in idea the forest-laws in Europe, when you inserted that article; for no circumstance that ever took place in America, could have suggested the thought of a declaration in favor of hunting and fishing. Will you forever persist in error? Do you not reflect that the state of property in America, is directly the reverse of what it is in Europe? Do you not consider, that the forest-laws in Europe originated in feudal tyranny, of which not a trace is to be found in America? Do you not know that in this country almost every farmer is Lord of his own soil? That instead of suffering under the oppression of a Monarch and Nobles, a class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every man in America is a Lord himself—enjoying his property in fee? Where then the necessity of laws to secure hunting and fishing? You may just as well ask for a clause, giving licence for every man to till his own land, or milk his own cows. The Barons in Europe procured forest-laws to secure the right of hunting on their own land, from the intrusion of those who had no property in lands. But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of any laws upon this subject, but renders them absolutely trifling. The same laws which secure the property in land, secure to the owner the right of using it as he pleases. Read more at the Online Library of Liberty!
The Federal Convention, 17 September 1787
In the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the need for a bill of rights, Anti-Federalists generally believed that the absence of a written declaration was a major defect of the proposed Constitution. Without a bill of rights, they claimed, the government may become one of unlimited powers and trample on the rights and liberties of the people. Most Federalists argued that a written declaration of rights was unnecessary in theory and ineffectual in practice. In practical terms, Federalists claimed that the people’s rights and liberties are protected by the numerous constitutional safeguards that provide for mutual checks among the departments of government. Further, they insisted, the real security for the people’s rights is achieved by connecting the interests of the rulers with the interests of the people so that the rulers will have no motive to invade the rights of the people; or they argued that the true security for rights and the preservation of liberty can only be achieved by the ongoing perseverance of a freedom-loving people of sound sense and honest hearts. In theoretical terms, many Federalists claimed that the very idea of a constitution of enumerated and limited powers removes the need for a bill of rights. Elaborating on the notion of constitutionalism, they maintained that because the people delegate power to the government, and not vice versa, all powers that are not delegated are necessarily reserved to them as men or as citizens. The enumeration of the rights of the people carries with it the potential for abuse, for in the future it may be presumed that only those rights listed belong to the people. And it would be sheer folly, they said, to attempt to enumerate all the rights of mankind Online Library of Liberty
In the post I put up previously about the founding Father’s there was something that struck me! Roger Sherman stated:
There is one amendment proposed by the convention of South Carolina respecting religious tests, by inserting the word other, between the words no and religious in that article, which is an ingenious thought, and had that word been inserted, it would probably have prevented any objection on that head. But it may be considered as a clerical omission and be inserted without calling a convention; as it now stands the effect will be the same”
This was written in his second letter to the New Haven Gazette on the 25th of December 1788. It made me wonder how much history would have changed if that word, other, had been inserted in between the words no and religious?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
From the Congressional Debates of 1789, we have this discussion on Religious Amendments:
August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)
The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.
The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:
Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert ‘no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.
Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the sentence.
Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.
Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had ‘no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.’
Mr. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.
Mr. MADISON thought, if the word ‘National’ was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word ‘National’ was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
Mr. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman’s motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.
Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single ‘no National religion shall be established by law’, did not apply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE’s motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it.(5)
(End of Religious Reference)
I find it odd that people can read the amendment and clearly understand that the government is not allowed to infringe on the rights of the press, and yet as the same time ignore the statement that this same government is forbidden from infringing upon the rights of the people to practice their religion and to assemble peaceably as they will.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
I also find it odd that those we elect to serve us and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of American, assume that their role is instead to change that very document into something that suits their ideas of what should be. We have a responsibility to those who come after us to teach them the true meaning of what the oath of affirmation says.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
We have strayed very far from our beginnings, so far that children today seem to believe that our President serves as a Monarch, instead as part of a trinity of three equal branches of government with each having their own established jobs to do. We have let Presidents take power by way of Presidential Signings that has no real basis in law, and yet they use this power to force their will upon the people even when the people who elected them cry out for change. Our current discussion of limiting the rights of the people is another power grab that goes totally against the Constitution and knowing it, our leaders intend to do all they can to steal this right away from the people. This was not unforeseen by those very writers of the Constitution:
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”
Mr. GERRY: This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
These gentlemen knew what it was like to be under an oppressive government. They understood the probability that there would come a time when our government no longer served the people but instead used force to impose their will upon them. They wanted to prevent this from happening.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.
In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.
The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.
When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.
Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.
I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.
Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Read more at
“A Citizen of New Haven” [Roger Sherman]
The Letters: I-II
New Haven Gazette, 18 and 25 December 1788
Observations on the Alterations Proposed as Amendments to the new Federal Constitution.
6. It is proposed that no commercial treaty should be made without the consent of two-thirds of the senators, nor any cession of territory, right of navigation or fishery, without the consent of three-fourths of the members present in each branch of congress.
It is provided by the constitution that no commercial treaty shall be made by the president without the consent of two-thirds of the senators present, and as each state has an equal representation and suffrage in the senate, the rights of the state will be as well secured under the new constitution as under the old; and it is not probable that they would ever make a cession of territory or any important national right without the consent of congress.
7. There is one amendment proposed by the convention of South Carolina respecting religious tests, by inserting the word other, between the words no and religious in that article, which is an ingenious thought, and had that word been inserted, it would probably have prevented any objection on that head. But it may be considered as a clerical omission and be inserted without calling a convention; as it now stands the effect will be the same
Observations on the New Federal Constitution
The immediate security of the civil and domestic rights of the people will be in the government of the particular states. And as the different states have different local interests and customs which can be best regulated by their own laws, it should not be expedient to admit the federal government to interfere with them, any farther than may be necessary for the good of the whole. The great end of the federal government is to protect the several states in the enjoyment of those rights, against foreign invasion, and to preserve peace and a beneficial intercourse among themselves; and to regulate and protect our commerce with foreign nations.
These were not sufficiently provided for by the former articles of confederation, which was the occasion of calling the late Convention to make amendments. This they have done by forming a new constitution containing the powers vested in the federal government, under the former, with such additional powers as they deemed necessary to attain the ends the states had in view, in their appointment. And to carry those powers into effect, they thought it necessary to make some alterations in the organization of the government: this they supposed to be warranted by their commission.
The powers vested in the federal government are clearly defined, so that each state still retain its sovereignty in what concerns its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a sovereign state not particularly delegated to the government of the United States. The new powers vested in the United States, are, to regulate commerce; provide for a uniform practice respecting naturalization, bankruptcies, and organizing, arming and training the militia; and for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States; and for promoting the progress of science in the mode therein pointed out. There are some other matters which Congress has power under the present confederation to require to be done by the particular states, which they will be authorized to carry into effect themselves under the new constitution; these powers appear to be necessary for the common benefit of the states, and could not be effectually provided for by the particular states
Read more from letters from Roger Sherman and our other Founders at Online Library of Liberty
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
“Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”
–Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.
“I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of theirrepentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.
“I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
“I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment.”
–The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Read More at About.com Christianity
I have been staying away from politics pretty much lately, but I am sure most of you know my position. I am not a supporter of the Obama administration because of their stance on Life, as well as numerous other stance’s, too many to enumerate at this point. My friend Grumpy Elder has a post up that is well worth taking time for. It is honest, amusing, informing and relevant. Perhaps there will be some who do not like it, but since there are so many things that are unappealing in the current administration that are being actively promoted. I seriously doubt that taking a humorous look at the administration is harmful in any way. Oh and please visit grumpy and watch the other videos, as well as read the rest of his daily newspaper, you will find a treasure trove of useful information. Entertaining and Educating you at Grumpy Opinion’s!!!!!
The White House
I understand from public reports that you taught a course in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago some years ago, though I have not seen a publication of your class syllabus for that course. I note, too, that you were graduated from Harvard University School of Law. I assume that you took a course in Constitutional law while attending Harvard, though a transcript of your Harvard course work indicating such a course has not been published.
News accounts during the past weeks report great controversy over a new requirement that religious institutions will soon be required to fund all medical requirements of their employees. I note with interest that you, too, have commented on it, apparently concluding that these institutions must pay for medical services just like all other institutions covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Liberty of conscience, especially in religious matters, certainly is at the heart of this dispute. It occurred to me that you would have a clear view of this issue, having taught Constitutional law for a time. Since your public statements give no indication that you are familiar with the Religion Clause, I wondered how that could be in light of your time teaching it. Then it occurred to me that you had the same experience as others of us who have taught at the college or university level — we do not always get to the end of our syllabi. In the case of the Constitution, that could mean that you did not get to the Bill of Rights in your course.
As everyone knows, the Founding Fathers placed freedom of religion in the first two clauses of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment). They did so because this issue was foremost in the public mind. Assuming that you did not get a chance to study the religion clause, and therefore, did not lecture on it at the University of Chicago, let me briefly sum up the essence of the matter. I believe that this could help you to understand liberty of conscience better.
We all know that George Mason and Thomas Jefferson led the way towards religious liberty in Virginia in the 1770s. This resulted in the famous Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty in 1786. Before that, however, two important statements about religious liberty were promulgated. The first was the Constitution of the State of Virginia, published in 1776 including a “Bill of Rights,” the last section of which stated the following:
That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Months before the enactment of the 1786 statement on religious liberty, a second very important document appeared. It was James Madison’s famous argument, presented to the state legislature for enactment, against state support for churches and in favor of religious liberty based on liberty of conscience which was already enshrined in the state constitution — noted above. It had that odd title often used in the late 18th century: A MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE. In addition to the emphasis on liberty of conscience, defined in the Virginia Bill of Rights, Madison stressed a point that is significant for today’s arguments about liberty of conscience and proposed state action. Said Madison, “We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.” He continued, “If religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that (authority) of the Legislative Body.” Madison goes on to say rulers who encroach on the barriers between liberty of conscience and the power of civil society “are Tyrants.”
All other states by 1780 had provisions in their constitutions for liberty of conscience, each almost a mirror image of the others. It’s not surprising, therefore, that when it came time during the first session of Congress to draft a Bill of Rights for the federal Constitution, the first clause was a religion clause. That it was intended to mirror the liberty of conscience clauses of the state constitutions is evident in the developing drafts of the religion clauses by the Congress in the summer of 1789. Joseph Gales, comp., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, 1834), pp. 434, 729, 766, records the following development of the religion clause:
(June 8) The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
(August 2) Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
(August 15) No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
(September 25) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof …
The September statement is the one that came back from the printer. After much study, my view is that since printers were also editors in that era, the reflexive “thereof” was an editorial change that did not change the standing practice of seeing “freedom of religion” and “liberty of conscience” as interchangeable phrases.
The point here, President Obama, is that Congress, in drafting the religion clauses of the Bill of Rights, was reflecting provisions found in all of the state constitutions at the time of the American Revolution — all providing for liberty of conscience. This reflected a common phrase in America, dating back a century and a half, namely, ”God alone is Lord of the conscience and has made it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.”
President Obama, let me make one more point that you probably might know about. The Constitution of the State of Illinois, dated December 15, 1971, begins with a preamble which states, “Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing … we establish this constitution.” Then Section 3, entitled “Religious Freedom,” states: “The free exercise of religion and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination shall forever be guaranteed.” And it adds, “Liberty of conscience is hereby secured.” Last time I checked, most of the other states have the same or similar clauses in their constitutions as does your home state of Illinois.
President Obama, there seems to be only one conclusion that can be reached in a study of liberty of conscience clauses in American constitutions from the early days of the Revolution to the present hour. It is this: People’s religious views, excepting outrageous and unreasonable actions, cannot be infringed upon by anyone, especially not by the civil government (state).
It would seem to me that as America’s Chief Magistrate, after reviewing the development of liberty of conscience as outlined above, and having taught Constitutional law, you would be especially careful to support liberty of conscience when issuing executive orders or departmental regulations.
Finally, you may find that the liberty of conscience of citizens constrains or limits some things you may wish to do. That, however, is a condition of your office given the separation of powers in the Constitution.
Exercising my religious liberty, I pray for you often.
L. John Van Til, Ph.D.
Dr. L. John Van Til is a fellow for law & humanities with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Publication date: February 16, 2012
by BOB UNRUH
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law. Read the rest at WND
American Minute with Bill Federer
The 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1933, changed the date of Presidential Inaugurations from March 4th to JANUARY 20th. Franklin Roosevelt stated in his 1945 Inaugural Address: “Almighty God has blessed our land.” Harry S Truman said in his Inaugural, 1949: “We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.” In his 1953 Inaugural, Dwight Eisenhower commented: “This is the work that awaits us all, to be done with bravery, with charity, and with prayer to Almighty God.” In 1961, John F. Kennedy remarked in his Inaugural: “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Lyndon B. Johnson said in his Inaugural, 1965: “The judgment of God is harshest on those who are most favored.” Richard Nixon, 1969, remarked in his Inaugural: “As all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal in dignity before man.” Jimmy Carter, in his 1977 Inaugural, said: “‘What does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.’” In 1981, Ronald Reagan stated in his Inaugural: “With God’s help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”
American Minute with Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation. Jefferson‘s Statute for Religious Freedom, which he commemorated on his tombstone, was passed in 1786 by the Virginia Assembly. In his draft, Jefferson wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone.” In his Second Inaugural Address, 1805, Jefferson wrote: “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.” In 1808, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller: “I consider the government of the United States as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”
When did it just become another meaningless piece of paper that binds neither the Congress nor the President? When did the States give up their rights? How do the people of the United States hold their Representatives accountable?
We seem to have entered a time period when the very people that we elect to office to fulfill the responsibility laid out in our founding document, have decided that that document that the founders of this country fought and died for, no longer apply to them. How do we hold them accountable when they refuse to obey the law and when they refuse to hold the President accountable when he refused to obey the law? Is the law meaningless now? If so, why are “We the people” bound by the law? Below is a response I gave on another post from yesterday “Soft Secession“, if you haven’t read it, it was reblogged from Western Hero and is well worth taking the time to read. He has a lot of excellent point and possible solutions.
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 shewn 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”
I don’t know about you my friend but these words have just as much meaning to me today, as they did to the founders when they signed the “Declaration of Independence.”
Do you believe that the President is fulfilling Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution which states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Or do the States not have the rights outlined in Section V which states “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”
When did the Presidents responsibility end and how do you make a lawless President obey the laws? Especially when the Congress itself refuses to do their job? Why are the people bound by a lawless Congress that keeps putting more and more taxation and burden upon them? At what point does the Constitution itself become nothing more than a piece of paper? When that happens, who is bound to it? Only the people? When does a republic cease to exist? Where have the States given up the rights that they kept for themselves? Why should those in power not be held accountable to the very documents that established this country?
- Freedom From Tryanny (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- Publius Huldah (grumpyelder.com)
- This is not America anymore (grumpyelder.com)
- What is the constitutional remedy for a lawless president? (bellalu0.wordpress.com)
Dan Graves, MSL
In 1787 a convention in Philadelphia drafted what is usually recognized as the most extraordinary political document of history. The Constitution of the United States created a federal system with checks and balances on power. The world had never seen anything like it.
Despite its benefits, there was doubt it would be ratified by the individual states. Having recently escaped one tyranny, the people of the United States did not want to subject themselves to another. They feared the new constitution because, while it specified the rights of the new government, and gave such rights as the writ of habeas corpus, it did not list other rights that the people felt it should. These could be inferred, but the majority of Americans felt safer having them spelled out.
For the most part, those who were for the federal system were for the constitution as it stood. Those who opposed a federal system, wanted more guarantees of rights. Several state conventions asked for such a bill. Thomas Jefferson urged that they be given their wish. A “bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” The U. S. Congress agreed and by a two thirds majority passed ten amendments to the constitution, called the Bill of Rights.
On this day, December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. It is significant to church history because of its first Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” This amendment was the result of long centuries of efforts by religious groups such as the Quakers and Baptists to obtain religious liberty.
The first amendment meant that the Federal government of the United States could not establish a national church, such as was common in many other nations. Anyone could worship as he or she pleased and the Federal government could not say “boo” except under special circumstances.
Federal civil rights are not obligatory for states, however. At the state level, established churches continued to exist for some years. Read the rest at: http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11630315/?utm_source=This%20Week%20in%20Christian%20History%20-%20Christianity.com
On DECEMBER 8, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln announced his plan to accept back into the Union those who had been in the Confederacy. He wrote: “Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States…Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion…that a full pardon is hereby granted to them…with restoration of all rights of property…upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath…to wit: “I, ____, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves…and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves….So help me God.”
Breaking => Revolution In Full Swing ~ ‘National County Sheriff Project’: Sheriff Richard Mack.(via Political Vel Craft)
Americans are pushing back all over the country. It is very clear a revolution is in full swing. Tea Parties have been organizing to fight the bailouts and taxation. Occupy Movements have be springing up to fight against Wall St corruption at the hands of the Federal Reserve. Americans are pulling their cash out of Big Banks and supporting local Credit unions, as we move into a heated election season where it looks like it’s anyone’s game.
In today’s exclusive special report Gary Franchi is joined by Former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack. They discuss the County Sheriff Project, a movement that will compound the effort to push back against an over reaching Federal Government, a movement that needs your support.
Washington politicians and bureaucrats have failed to respond to the will of the American people. Despite the high turnover, of that past two elections, Washington politicians continue to trample on the rights of the people, and stay the course of tyrants.
Sheriff Mack offers a solution to the over reach of Federal Authority; that is your county sheriff. The sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in each county. The sheriff, who upholds his oath of office, can protect the citizens, in the county, against un-lawful harassment of Federal Agents, who have no Constitutional Authority outside of Federal property, their jurisdiction. Read the rest at Political Vel Craft
He lost two sons in the Revolution, was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration and served on 120 Congressional Committees. His name was John Witherspoon, and he died NOVEMBER 15, 1794. Born in Scotland, a descendant of John Knox, John Witherspoon was President of Princeton, leader of a New Jersey committee to abolish slavery, and taught 9 of the writers of the U.S. Constitution, including James Madison. Other students became Vice-President, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet Members, Governors, Senators and Congressmen. John Adams described Witherspoon as “A true son of liberty…but first, he was a son of the Cross.” On May 17, 1776, the day Congress declared a Day of Fasting, Rev. John Witherspoon told his Princeton students: “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most…active in promoting true and undefiled religion…to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country. It is in the man of piety and inward principle that we may…find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier.” John Witherspoon concluded: “God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable.”
|United States Senator Charles Carroll was unique. He was the only Roman Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence and he outlived all the other signers. At his death, Charles Carroll was considered the wealthiest citizen in America. His statue was chosen to represent the State of Maryland in the U.S. Capitol‘s Statuary Hall. Charles’ cousin, John Carroll, founded Georgetown University and was the United States’ first Catholic Bishop. Another cousin, U.S. Rep. Daniel Carroll, was one of two Catholics to sign the U.S. Constitution and gave much of the land where the U.S. Capitol is located. Charles Carroll’s nephew, Robert Brent, was the first mayor of Washington, D.C., being reappointed by Jefferson and Madison. In a letter to James McHenry, the signer of the Constitution for whom Fort McHenry was named, Charles Carroll wrote on NOVEMBER 4, 1800: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time.” Carroll continued: “They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”|
Nevada Sheriff Tony DeMeo Stops Federal Agents: Feds Engaging In Illegal Confiscation Of Cattle And Water Rights Of County Property Owner.(via Political Vel Craft)
In this 3-part video interview with Tony DeMeo, Sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, he explains that he is a Constitutional Sheriff and that authority for public office holders is derived from the people. He tells the story about how he used the Constitution as his foundation in the saga of Nye County rancher Wayne Hage’s disputes over encroachments by the federal government. While Wayne Hage’s case centered around property rights in federally managed lands, Sheriff Tony DeMeo’s example is relevant for everyone to understand the power of local government, the importance of following the Constitution and upholding the Tenth Amendment (states’ rights and sovereignty).
Wayne Hage, the author of “Storm Over Rangelands, Private Rights in Federal Lands” owned the Pine Creek cattle ranch in Nye County. Wayne Hage wrote his book after suffering illegal cattle seizures by armed federal agents and chronicled the history of how the robber baron bankers and railroad magnates monopolized the western states over 100 years ago. Hage wrote that the northern core financiers were aware that there are two ways to monopolize any resource, “One, get all of it for yourself that you can; two, keep anybody else from getting what you can’t.” Public Lands and National Forests were created along with restrictive regulations, using environmental protection as the excuse.
The first video covers Wayne Hage’s discovery that the US Department of Forestry, an agency of the USDA, filed a claim for his water rights and later seized his cattle; the USDA Forestry Service used armed agents to accomplish the seizure. Hage believed that his cattle were confiscated so that he would be unable to show that he was using his water rights for ‘beneficial use’ in order to shut down his ranch. Water is scarce in Nevada and unless the landowner can prove he is using the water rights for ‘beneficial use’, the rights are removed.
Read the rest at
Chicago, in its 178 years of blustery existence, has produced its fair share of murderers, gangsters, spies, and assorted miscreants—H.H. Holmes, John Wayne Gacy, theUnabomber, Richard Speck, Jose Padilla, John Dillinger, Al Capone, Robert Hanssen, the 1919 Black Sox; but most dangerous of all is the erstwhile Windy Citizen whose premeditated actions threaten to destroy an entire country.
Barack Obama, bound by oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, has done precisely the opposite since the first hours of his misbegotten administration. As Robert Knight so aptly points out, “The scope of his lawless disregard expands by the day.” (Obama tears up the Constitution – Washington Times). Obama’s actions–and ofttimes his words–are not those of the leader of a country in which no man is above the law. They are the musings of a would-be dictator:
- “Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’” (Obama wishes he was president of China – The Washington Examiner)
- “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.” (Obama Once Again Declares He Wants to Circumvent Congress – The Blaze)
- “Given that Congress cannot act, I am acting.” (Obama Says He’s Exempting States from Education Law Without Congressional Authorization – CNS)
- “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works.” (Obama tempted to go it alone–if only he could – ABC News)
From healthcare to energy; from education to immigration, Barack Obama and his underlings routinely ignore the law when the law does not conform to leftist ideology:
Sunday, September 25, 2011
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus began the first Ten Amendments, or Bill of Rights, which were approved SEPTEMBER 25, 1789. George Mason, known as “The Father of the Bill of Rights,” wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights from which Jefferson drew to write the Declaration of Independence. George Mason was one of 55 founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but was also one of sixteen who refused to sign it because it did not abolish slavery and did not limit the power of the Federal Government. Mason joined with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to prevent the Constitution from being ratified, as the abuses of King George’s concentrated power were still fresh. It was largely through George Mason’s insistence that in the first session of Congress ten limitations or amendments were put on the new Federal Government. George Mason had suggested the wording of the First Amendment be: “All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”